Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Population and Development (Cairo Conference)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: The Cairo conference held in 1994 was an enormously significant event, as 180 nations gathered together to sign a declaration of commitment to put human rights at the centre of reproductive health. Since Cairo, the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and, most important, to have the information and means to do so has been accepted, thus giving people the right to attain higher standards of sexual and reproductive health.
We are, however, a long way from realising that ideal. More than 580,000 women—99 per cent. of them live in developing countries—die each year as a result of pregnancy or childbirth. It is estimated that about 20 million unsafe abortions occur each year, resulting in about 70,000 deaths and millions of disabilities. At any one moment, 120 women who do not want to get pregnant do so for lack of access to contraception. Each year, between 15 million and 19 million young girls give birth. Between 100 million and 132 million women and girls have been subjected to female genital mutilation. More than 30 million people live with HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of them—85 per cent.—in Africa or Asia. That is a catalogue of totally avoidable disaster.
The technology and resources to avoid such disasters are easily available and not expensive, and success in that field would mean that all people would win, wherever they live in the world, but especially women and children living in the poorest parts of the world. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) recently accompanied me to Nigeria, where we saw a country whose per capita income is plummeting; one of the many reasons for that is that the population is soaring. In Nepal, the population is rising rapidly and people are fleeing the hillsides because of deforestation and because those areas cannot support a growing population. In Botswana and Namibia, rapidly growing populations are making the shortage of water more acute, with waterholes drying up and people having to leave the surrounding area.
World population is surging upwards by about 78 million each year. This year, slightly more than 10 years after reaching 5 billion, the number of people will reach 6 billion. We cannot go on at that rate: population growth is the world's biggest sustainable development

issue. To an overwhelming extent, that growth has occurred in the poorest parts of the world. One fact that staggers me is that, in 1900, Europe had three times the population of Africa; by 2050–150 years later—Africa will have three times the population of Europe, including Russia. Nevertheless, the greatest numerical increase will have occurred in Asia.
Because these children have already been born and because the developing world's population is so young, nothing can avert huge population growth in the near future; but the sooner the world's population is stabilised because that is what people want, the better it will be for everyone. Throughout western Europe, whether in Britain, Italy, Sweden or Spain, we choose to have small families. I want to ensure that every woman and every family in the world has the right to make the same choice.
The timing of the debate is impeccable. In February, a major forum for non-governmental organisations will be held in The Hague; and a conference of parliamentarians to assess Cairo-plus-five will take place at roughly the same time. The all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), has taken a prominent role in the planning of those conferences. The United Nations Commission on Population and Development meets in March; and, from 30 June to 2 July, there will be a special session of the United Nations General Assembly to consider progress since Cairo. Today's debate gives the House a chance to assess progress since Cairo, and to hear from the Government their evaluation of the progress made and their policy for the future.
Let us first address the issue of resources. The funding target agreed in Cairo in 1994 was £17 billion, of which two thirds was to be provided by developing countries and one third by developed countries. By the end of 1995, the developing countries had spent £7.5 billion on population development and reproductive health activities. Donor countries had contributed £2 billion. Those were early days post-Cairo, but in order to reach the agreed target by 2000, donor countries must increase their contributions by 23 per cent. each year.
Any funding shortfall is not academic but has profound consequences for individuals. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities has calculated that the current rate of underfunding will result in 120 million unwanted pregnancies, 49 million additional abortions, 5 million deaths of infants and young children and 65,000 maternal deaths over the years 1995 to 2000.
How is Britain doing as a nation? To their credit, the previous Government increased the amount of aid resources devoted to reproductive health. However, they did so within the restrictions of a constantly falling aid budget. The research organisation Population Aid International has evaluated the performance of all donor nations. Only the Scandinavians get A grades; we receive a B-minus. Of course, the organisation evaluated the performance of the previous Government; it did not take into account our creation of the Department for International Development or the wonderful 28 per cent. increase in DFID's aid budget following the comprehensive spending review. We have put much more energy into debt and trade issues that will help developing countries.
Today's debate will give the Government a chance to reaffirm our commitment to reproductive health and to commit ourselves to further development of our contribution to this field of human rights. Britain is commended for our technical expertise, and I praise the first-rate efforts of NGOs such as Marie Stopes International and Population Concern, which are respected throughout the world for their contributions. I also commend the BBC World Service and the International Planned Parenthood Federation for their highly successful "Sexwise" radio programmes that are aimed at young people. The programmes were first broadcast in south Asia, but will now go worldwide to eastern Europe, central Asia, Africa, the Americas, the Arab world and south-east Asia. Radio has enormous public education potential in countries with vast distances and poor services. I was pleased to hear from the BBC that the story in The Observer about reductions in the World Service is wrong and that it is planning further investment after years of cuts.
What are the Government's plans? I applaud the start made by DFID, but the Population Action International report says that the British contribution will have to treble if it is to be a fair per capita share of a fully subscribed and honoured Cairo commitment. It is particularly important that Britain should do well because of worries about the contribution of others, particularly the world's major economies. I shall mention three in particular.
The United States has the worst record of all developed nations in terms of its failure to meet the United Nations aid commitment of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. It is unlikely—although I have not managed to check—that President Clinton gave a commitment to any improvement in his state of the union address yesterday. The United States appears to give a substantial amount to family planning services, but that is merely a reflection of its huge economy. The funding is extremely volatile and cannot be relied upon. It depends on who has the upper hand in Congress at a particular time.
The moral McCarthyites are uppermost at the moment and forbid any expenditure where there is even the suspicion that money is being spent on abortion. Unfortunately, in their desire to protect the unborn, those fundamentalists withhold money that would save the lives of women in childbirth. Women are killed by unsafe abortions, and countless thousands of infants and children die because of a lack of resources. It is a strange morality that kills the born so as theoretically to protect the unborn. We cannot rely on the Americans to honour their commitment to Cairo.
The Japanese are also big givers, but there must be question marks over the stability of their contribution given the turmoil in the far eastern economy. There are also doubts about how much of Japan's contribution is devoted to reproductive health as compared with general welfare. There is a trend in Japanese giving to distribute aid to neighbouring countries rather than to the areas of most need and greatest poverty. It is strange that, although the Japanese play a prominent role in international organisations that are concerned with population development and reproductive health, the pill is not available in Japan. That greatly weakens Japan's credibility in human and women's rights terms. It is therefore doubtful whether Japan will be able to contribute as much as we had hoped to the Cairo commitment.
Another of the potentially big givers with which we are concerned is the European Union. I hope that there can be much improvement in this area. The Government are also concerned about the issue, and the Select Committee on International Development is investigating the situation. The EU performance gives me and many others cause for concern. It is the most constipated of donors: a great deal seems to go into the organisation's mouth and great intentions are spouted, but little seems to come out easily from the other end.
In 1994, the Commission announced its intention to increase funding for population programmes more than tenfold by 2000. What has happened? Is the EU contribution skewed to the poorest nations? No, in recent years there seems to have been a greater concentration of funding to Mediterranean countries. There also appears to be a shortage of expertise, which is scattered around the multiple directorates-general that have some responsibility for development.
European NGOs and others have extreme difficulty understanding the EU system. It is hard to find one's way around a system that is interminable in terms of delivery. Organisations, particularly poor organisations in developing countries, simply lose patience with a system that can take years to process a proposal. When proposals are processed, the funding is often unreliable. I welcome the Government's views on the likelihood of change.
I turn to other areas of particular concern. I shall not refer to the importance of services for young people because my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to talk about her valuable work in this connection. In this country and elsewhere in the world, we cannot adopt the posture of the ostrich and simply wish that young people would stop doing it. It is futile simply to aim our services at married couples and those whom we deem to be mature. In sub-Saharan Africa, eight out of 10 young people are sexually active. Many babies are born to very young women—there are 15 million births a year to girls aged 15 to 19. I applaud NGOs such as Population Concern that are involved in this difficult work which is often greeted with hostility. Unless those young people are fully aware of AIDS and how to combat it, for example, they will simply never become adults.
The IPPF and others are doing valuable work in eastern and central Europe of a very different focus. Those countries often had services that have collapsed with the disintegration of the USSR. They are becoming poorer and poorer. Those countries had services, but they were the wrong services because they were based on abortion, so in many countries there were as many abortions as there were live births. It is not allowable under the Cairo protocol, and rightly so, to use abortion as a method of birth control.
It is my belief that, sadly, the biggest challenge to face this country and Europe in the next 10 years will be a further collapse of the area of the former USSR. We must not forget the reproductive needs of people in those countries. I commend the Europe section of the IPPF for the work that it has been doing. I support the—often new—family planning associations in those countries where there has been no tradition of volunteering and where civil society has had to be built up. Women there now have to pay for services that previously were free.
Those are volatile countries where the threat of fascism and further social upheaval is constantly present. We have to support the family planning associations and other volunteers who are emerging, often in a hostile atmosphere. What reassurance will the Minister give me that such work is of great importance to the Department for International Development and that he will ensure that we and the European Union generally support it?
Finally, I turn to the scourge of HIV and AIDS. The figures are nightmarish. More than 33 million people are affected worldwide and they are overwhelmingly in the poorest parts of the world. For example, in Botswana, 25 per cent. of the population is HIV positive. An increasing proportion are women who have been infected by their straying husbands. Already in Botswana—this figure is stark—the life expectancy of the population has fallen from 61 to 47. The number of orphans is sky-rocketing as the vast majority of those who die are aged 20 to 50. At clinics that I visited in Tanzania, staff could not dream of testing pregnant women for HIV because women would no longer attend clinics that tested them and gave them bad news about themselves and their babies.
It is difficult in humanitarian terms to think of a more pressing case in respect of which the Cairo commitments should be honoured. Will the Minister tell me whether there are any international signs of optimism in policy approaches or of countries successfully reducing rates of infection?
I am grateful to the House and the Minister for listening to those points. I hope that the whole House and the country will back the Government in their work to support the outcome of the 1994 Cairo conference. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are approaching the deliberations on Cairo plus five years.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: As one who was part of the delegation at the Cairo conference, I thought that I should make a short speech today. I was rather tied up on the Greater London Authority Bill all day yesterday and will be again today, so my preparation is not what it might have been. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing the debate, and I agreed with almost every word that he said.
I have drawn the attention of the House to population growth on many occasions during the past decade. The bare statistics are horrifying. When one considers that between the time that we adjourned the House last night and today, another 100,000 people came into the world, one begins to realise the consequences of population growth on the globe and its environment. Another statistic reveals that a third of the world's population is under the age of 15. Those people are tomorrow's parents, and population growth will continue relentlessly.
There are, of course, signs of encouragement. Those of us who have taken an interest in the subject over the years will have received Population Concern's regular data sheets. Before the debate, I picked up two at random—one from 1983 and one from 1993—as a matter of interest and to find out what projections were being made in those years. In 1983, it was forecast that by 2020, the world population would be 7.8 billion. The best comparative statistic is that in that year the world's population was

projected to double within 39 years. A decade later, the projection was that the world's population would double in 42 years. That is a clear sign that the policies that have been put into effect in the past two decades are beginning to work.
Population growth has a serious impact on any nation. Whatever one may say about China's population policies—none of us feels entirely comfortable with them—they are achieving results. It is only by addressing the threat to stability in China that its Government have been able to stabilise population growth. I drew attention to the reduction in the doubling time for the world's population; much of that is attributable to the stabilisation of population growth in China.
The threat of population growth to any country is obvious. If a population is growing by 3 per cent. a year, that country must provide 3 per cent. more jobs, 3 per cent. more schools, 3 per cent. more electricity and other resources. If the economy is growing at 2 per cent., the country is going backwards. That is the stark truth.
I am proud that the previous Government recognised the problem—although they took some persuading—and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie was right to draw attention to that. I recognise that the present Government have, by and large, continued the previous Government's policies, and I pay tribute to that. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who will reply to the debate, has a long tradition of involvement in the issue and is supportive, although the restraints of office may, now and again, have an impact on his thinking.
I pay tribute to the key non-governmental organisations in this country who have done so much in this field. Two are outstanding: Population Concern, whose data sheets I referred to, and Marie Stopes International. For a number of reasons, not everyone feels comfortable with the work of MSI—although I am very comfortable with it—but its contribution and role are unparalleled. I remember visiting one of its clinics in Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries in the world, and seeing the dramatic impact that it was having in the suburbs and inner-city areas of, for example, Addis Ababa. MSI tries to make its clinics self-financing by making a small charge for contraception. Having got a clinic up and running, the organisation moves on and opens another.
The 1994 Cairo conference was set in changing circumstances. It took place at the end of the Reagan era in the United States, and a more enlightened view was taken by the US Government, who were relaxing their opposition to support for global population programmes. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church was still determinedly opposed to any such programmes. It was the leader of the opposition at the Cairo conference. However, the conference was essentially a triumph.
Until Cairo there had been no global programme and no recognition across the world that population growth was a problem. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, it was within the gift of the conference to do something about that. The protocol that emerged recognised the problem and provided a solution. It recognised that there was a right of reproductive health and enshrined the phrase "reproductive health" in the world language. The mood at Cairo was that something had to be done. Of the 130 or so countries that participated, all bar two or three signed up to the final declaration.
There was also a parliamentary fringe at Cairo, and I had the privilege of making a speech in the chamber of the Egyptian Parliament. The Parliament had shut down for a week—perhaps it was in recess—and representatives from the 130 countries spoke about this most important issue.
Where have we got to in the post-Cairo era? The commitment remains, but I do not know whether it is being matched financially. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie was right to draw attention to the nations that could improve their performance in funding programmes. I also sense that, to some extent, the heat has gone out of the issue. Cairo put the heat into it, and perhaps in five years' time the 10-year successor to Cairo will inspire an escalation of interest in it again. One or two of the donor nations could be doing more than they are at present.
There is also a certain squeamishness among some Governments and NGOs as to whether or not they should be making a full-bloodied commitment to what are effectively family planning programmes. There is no question but that family planning without education is unacceptable. The people who are to receive family planning must be educated, but some groups still feel that that is a bit too up front and that family planning should be packaged with other issues such as maternal health, women's rights and many others that I could think of if I concentrated a little harder. However, if a programme covers all these things, the family planning element is watered down. We must not lose sight of the fact that contraception is the basic need, whatever else is included in a programme, and the watering down of the family planning element must be tackled.
None the less, the Cairo conference was a success. Indeed, as I said earlier, it was a triumph. It achieved its objectives and set in train a momentum. I hope that will be the tone of the next five years as we build up to the successor conference.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this debate. It is an important time to discuss the issues surrounding Cairo-plus-five. I must apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House because I have to leave early. I have to chair a meeting of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs at 11 am, so I shall not be able to hear all the winding-up speeches.
The all-party group on population, development and reproductive health which, as my hon. Friend said, I chair, sponsored a reception in the House last November by Marie Stopes International to mark the 10th anniversary of the safe motherhood initiative. I shall focus on the way that the Cairo conference moved the debate on from a purely demographic way of thinking about population programmes towards the broader concept of sexual and reproductive health, including family planning, and an emphasis on the importance of women's interests, needs and rights as essential components of development.
Among the challenges facing the world is, as well as the horrendous list that my hon. Friend outlined, the fact that every minute of every day, a woman dies from causes

related to pregnancy and childbirth, most of which are preventable. Also, the vast majority—99 per cent.—of the 585,000 deaths that occur each year take place in the developing world. For every woman who dies, approximately 30 more suffer injuries, infections or disabilities, some of which have lifelong consequences. Some 3 million families endure the death of their newborn in the first week of life. As a result of the 100 million or so acts of sexual intercourse that take place each day, there are also an estimated 900,000 new cases of sexually transmitted diseases and 8,500 new HIV infections. Women are increasingly being affected by these infections. The statistics show clearly that sexual activity and reproduction still pose considerable threats to women's health and well-being.
The all-party group welcomes the Government's commitment, set out in the White Paper, to reduce maternal mortality by 75 per cent. by 2015. To do that, we must face the challenge of unsafe abortion. There are 20 million a year, resulting in 70,000 deaths and literally millions of disabilities. The Cairo programme of action recognised the health impact of unsafe abortion as of "major public health concern". Of course, we must recognise the difficulties in tackling the issue.
Parliamentarians from around the world attended a seminar in Brussels last year. Some Latin American Members of Parliament had a problem with incorporating the resolution on unsafe abortion in an agreed statement. They eventually acknowledged that it was a problem, and rightly so. We must call on countries like ourselves—for example, Denmark, Sweden and Finland—which have safe legal abortion services to work for similar conditions for women worldwide. If the European Union could take unsafe abortion on board as a public health issue, it would be a great step forward for global human rights.
As a priority, abortion needs to be integrated into a broad reproductive health service, offering a wide range of contraceptive choices, including emergency contraception, good technical care and easy access. Once a woman has decided on the option of abortion, she should have the possibility of early and quick referral for advice, counselling and treatment.
Action can be taken to make progress by reallocating and using efficiently public and private funds in support of various initiatives. Education and information need to be available through multiple channels, including the media, women's organisations and professional associations.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned emergency contraception. Did he see the reports in our press last week, which stated that hospitals were refusing women emergency contraception after unprotected intercourse, and that that was affecting younger women in particular? I am sure he will agree that it is necessary to keep our eye on the domestic problem as well as the worldwide problem.

Mr. Jones: I wholly agree with the hon. Lady. The all-party group acknowledges that we do not have all the answers, but I am stressing that at least we have safe clinical abortion available in this country when absolutely necessary. I also agree that emergency contraception is paramount in preventing unnecessary abortions. I hope that we make further progress in this country because teenage pregnancy is our black spot. I was going to say


that we should institute sexual education in schools and health facilities because that is another means of preventing teenage pregnancies.
We should educate health care providers, physicians and other professionals in the specifics of abortion laws and regulations, emphasising providers' responsibilities to deliver services to the fullest extent allowed by law. We should also have advocacy services, and should build the broad political will, as well as the commitment of health care officials and providers in particular, to ensure that safe services are available to all women to the full extent of existing law. Such services must be affordable by all women.
We must remove barriers to access to good quality, gender-sensitive sexual education for people of all ages. Where abortion is allowed on a range of legal grounds, we should design and enforce policies to ensure that good quality, affordable services are available to all women. Achieving the social and policy changes necessary to enable women and men to achieve sexual and reproductive health will entail another effort of co-operation between NGOs and Governments.
Quality reproductive and sexual health services clearly respond to people's needs better than a service offering only fertility regulation, although that is better than no service at all. Societal changes are necessary for those services to become a priority, and achieving the new priorities of women's empowerment and equity in a climate of reduced funding calls for a respect for human rights and for the wisdom of Governments who are currently having to cope with these sexual and reproductive health needs.
I know that we are preaching to the converted when addressing our Secretary of State and Under-Secretary of State for International Development on such matters—at least I hope so. The all-party group and I wish them well in their negotiations with colleagues on Cairo-plus-five for the environment, the well-being of men and women and the future of the human race.

Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on giving us the opportunity to debate this very important issue. This is one of the splendid occasions on which there is much all-party consensus. In their excellent speeches, the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) described different aspects of the problem. The difficulty is that, if we are not careful, we overwhelm ourselves with statistics, quoting one after the other to persuade ourselves that the problem is intractable. I do not believe that that is so. I share the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, South that there are distinct signs of hope in what has happened since Cairo.
I am particularly privileged to be able to speak on this issue. Normally, I would not be allowed to do so because the Liberal Democrats have a much better qualified colleague in my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who would have been delighted to participate in today's debate had she not been in southern Sudan and, therefore, not easily available. I know that she would have made a valuable contribution.
Let us reiterate the fact that, as the world population approaches the 6 billion landmark, it is growing by 78 million people a year. The hon. Member for Croydon,

South drew a telling analogy in saying how many people had been added to our population since last night. To put it another way, 78 million people is the population of France, Greece and Sweden combined. That is the scale of the issue.
Population concerns are at the heart of sustainable development strategies because rapid growth and high fertility hold back development and help perpetuate poverty. They make it hard for countries to concentrate on the future as they would want, because they are running to keep pace with current needs. One of the great achievements of the Cairo conference was to move away from a view based on coercion, setting targets and a top-down approach. Instead, emphasis was placed on individual decisions and prospects, and the various factors that affect such personal decisions. The conference moved towards integration of services, education and quality of care, and emphasised meeting individual needs. Once such needs are met, there is a chance that better educated personal decisions will be made.
In making such moves, the conference rightly laid stress on some social factors that might not otherwise have been prominent, such as equality, equity and the empowerment of women, which are very important in this context. Saying to women in some developing countries, where such concepts are not the historical norm, that there are alternatives to child bearing extends their educative process—if education is at all available—therefore delaying the start of child bearing, and enhancing education and the career and life style opportunities that that provides. The conference stressed the involvement of men, and how they should understand that women have rights. It considered the operation of such a big change in cultural norms, and placed emphasis on social practices, some of which are quite inimical to the progress that one hopes will be made. That is why we are right to emphasise that discrimination against girls in their education and against women in their social rights is critical.
No one can deny that there is a link between population, poverty and development. However, the link between economic factors and population growth is not simple or a straight quid pro quo. There is not necessarily a reduction in population growth as a result of economic growth. Indeed, economic drivers are very often the reason for large families, simply because such families are a necessity if one is to protect oneself in later years and provide for the family unit.
Let us remember that, of the 4.4 billion people in developing nations, a fifth have no access to health services, such as those that we would describe as health services, a quarter no adequate housing, a third no access to clean water and 60 per cent. no access to safe sewers. Such statistics are important because they extend the argument beyond population issues to other areas of international development. There is a seamless robe between the two; one cannot separate them.
Another key point is that the environment and population growth are inextricably linked. If one cares about the environment, one must care about poor countries, where substantial population growth contributes to its despoliation. Such despoliation, however, occurs at both ends of the economic spectrum. A very small part of the population—those in the richest countries—consumes the majority of the world's resources. The richest fifth of the world consumes 86 per cent. of all goods and services and causes 83 per cent. of all carbon dioxide emissions.


At the same time, market systems subsidise environmentally damaging practices. It is a paradox that the greatest environmental threat is caused by both the wealthiest billion and the poorest billion people in the world, who are struggling to stay alive, feed families and ensure that their families have some life.
I would not do justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park if I did not spend a moment addressing the issues of AIDS and HIV. She is one of the foremost advocates in the House and elsewhere of the need to address such important matters. Of the 33.4 million people who are infected with AIDS, 1.3 million are children. In 1998, 70 per cent. of the 5.8 million infections were in sub-Saharan Africa. That is the great motor for all manner of difficulties. The people who are affected are the economically active part of the population. As a result of the epidemic—a pandemic in parts of the world—there is a motor for poverty, instability and all manner of future problems, which will be extremely difficult to solve if we do not address them properly.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the subject of HIV and AIDS. Does he agree that Governments of the sub-Saharan nations, including Zimbabwe, are not entirely blameless for the spread of HIV and AIDS, given that Zimbabwe's Health Minister stood in their Parliament more than 10 years ago denying that there was such a thing—apart, perhaps, from that which could be caught by eating food that had not been grown in Zimbabwe? If we face such comments, which are not just ignorance but propaganda, how on earth can pandemics be stopped in their tracks? We must surely ensure that Governments are on board, spreading a good message rather than a predominantly evil one.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I agree that Governments have a special role to play. Governments elsewhere in the world have shut their eyes very tightly to the problem, too, hoping that it would go away—or, worse, spreading untruths about the nature of the epidemic and the way in which it can be countered. That is an enormous tragedy. However, we have probably made substantially progress. Governments now recognise that they have a massive problem on their hands. They recognise—but sometimes cannot meet—the needs that exist. That is where the countries of the rich world have a serious part to play.
I conclude with a simple thought. In this subject area, the outstanding fact is that partnership works—partnership between Governments, or between Governments, non-governmental organisations, Churches and so on. Preventive education works. Economic stability combined with adequate health services works. There has been a positive development since the Cairo summit: people no longer believe that population control is something that the north tells the south to do, and occasionally sends missionaries out to help it to do. Instead, a dialogue has started between the southern nations, which has worked much more effectively. Occasionally, the south now tells the north how to do it right, which is equally healthy in the modern world.
I hope that the Minister can reinforce those positive signs. I hope that he will tell us that the Government will continue to work to make some of the aspirations of the Cairo summit a reality, and to continue the progress that has been made in the past five years.

Ms Chris McCafferty: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this debate on a subject that is so close to my heart, and so important.
The first Cairo conference was a watershed for global population and development issues. Countries now accept that—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) eloquently said—rapid population growth, high fertility and gender inequality hold back development and help perpetuate poverty. The conference recognised that the keys to smaller families and slower population growth are empowerment and free choice, not demographic targets. Most women, given the choice, will have fewer children than their mothers did. Choice means more access to reproductive health care, including family planning.
Today's world has the largest ever population of young people—about 1.1 billion, of whom 913 million live in the less-developed world. The problems that those young people face in sexual and reproductive health are huge. Every year, 15 million 15 to 19-year-olds give birth, and 13 million of those are in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We have heard that some 10 per cent. of the 45 million abortions taking place each year are to 15 to 19-year-olds, and nearly half those are unsafe. Every year, one in 20 teenagers will contract a sexually transmitted disease. Deep-rooted discrimination against the girl child at every level in some societies compounds the problems that surround reproductive and sexual health.
It was against that background that the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and reproductive health decided to look in more detail at the challenges that face young people in managing their sexual and reproductive lives, and to identify the actions that we, as parliamentarians, can take to help them to face those challenges successfully.
Our approach was to hold two hearings in May 1998, which I was privileged to chair, and our report, "Taking Young People Seriously", was launched in December. That documents the facts—sometimes brutal—of young people's lives in developed and developing countries.
The experience of our two hearings was memorable, and sometimes profoundly shocking. The evidence was presented by 12 NGOs working with young people in the developed and the developing world. As a result, we made six recommendations; I should like to say briefly why we made each one. However, I could ask all hon. Members to read the report for the rich variety of information and experience that it documents.
Our first recommendation was that Governments and other agencies should acknowledge that young people have sex and take a realistic and proactive approach to policy and public education, nationally and internationally, about young people and sexual and reproductive health.
I have outlined some statistics that our witnesses gave us, from which it is clear that young people are sexually active. The risks of death are two to four times greater for


mothers under 20 than for mothers aged 20 or more. Ten per cent. of the 45 million abortions that take place every year are to girls aged between 15 and 19 years—and half those abortions are unsafe. When HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are put into that equation, the size of the challenge becomes obvious.
Our witnesses pointed out that adolescent sexual and reproductive health was seen as an unpopular issue. Dealing with adolescent sexuality presented a challenge for all NGOs working in the field. They felt that there was a need to move away from the negative approach of "limiting the damage" caused by teenage pregnancy to addressing teenagers' needs more positively.
Even in the United Kingdom there are many challenges. About 10 per cent. of girls start their periods unaware of periods, because no one has talked to them about the subject. A third to a half of young people under 16 are already having penetrative sex. The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in western Europe—9.4 per 1,000—and an increasing rate of sexually transmitted diseases.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Lady is painting a dismal—and recognizable—picture. We have free contraception, and abortions are available in the place of contraception in this country, yet rates of under-age sex, abortion and pregnancy are rising. Can she explain that? Secondly, does she believe that parents have a right and a responsibility for their under-age children, and that they should be aware when abortions are carried out on their children or contraception provided to those children?

Ms McCafferty: I believe that, if the hon. Lady is patient, she will find that the replies to her questions are in the responses that were made to the parliamentary hearings, and the group's recommendations. It is more a question of how things are done than of what is being done. I believe that, if the hon. Lady is patient, she will be able to take a different view.
Some developing countries are reluctant to recognise sexual activity in young people, and believe that to give young people information and services would be to impose a western model, which they see as promiscuous. As has been said, they associate the idea of sex education with the idea of increasing sexual activity for young people, and deny the existence of sexual activity among their own young people.
Our second recommendation was that Governments and other donors should give high priority to encouraging new approaches to sexual and reproductive health programmes, especially those that involve young people in their design and implementation, and provide on-going sustainable funding for such initiatives.
It emerged clearly from what our witnesses said that, for services and projects to be successful, it was necessary to listen to what young people wanted, respond to those needs and involve young people in the implementation of projects—and that projects that did not do so were bound to fail. Interestingly, young people the whole world over want the same things. Research shows clearly that young people want confidential sex advice centres free of charge and without appointments. They do not like words such as "family planning" or "drop in". Young people in Ireland, Zambia and South Africa want exactly the same things. They want to be involved in the design and implementation of projects that involve their sexual and reproductive health.
We heard of a variety of outreach projects in the United Kingdom, including youth panels. Particularly impressive is a programme in Zambia where young peer counsellors of a very young age are proud to wear tee-shirts proclaiming, "I am a peer counsellor". That is a good example of where the south can teach the north something about sexual and reproductive health and how to get through to young people and ensure a positive response. However, all these things are only drops in the ocean. They need replicating on a huge scale.
Another crucial fact to emerge from our hearings was the need for sustainable funding. It was clear to me and to the other members of the panel that for the foreseeable future sustainable funding will have to be from government and other official sources.
We had explicit evidence of how difficult it is to obtain financial support from private donors. Some manufacturers of products rely heavily on sexuality in youth for selling their products. Hon. Members will have heard the slogan "Everybody snogs in Joe Bloggs". However, Joe Bloggs is not interested in supporting young people's sexual health projects. This attitude seems to be shared by both Levi Strauss and Coca-Cola, both of which use sex as a method of selling their products. They appear to be unwilling to take responsibility for making that same sex safer for young people.
The perennial headache for NGOs is how to cope with success. New services rapidly attract clients, but the funding stays the same. Success for Belfast Brook meant that, in 12 months, it saw 5,000 young people. However, it was funded for only 3,500. If we are to take the need for young people's services seriously, that situation is clearly unacceptable. Governments and other official donors must take long-term responsibility for supporting services in the developed and developing world. That is the key message for the Department for International Development, the Department of Health and the European Commission.
Our third recommendation was that Governments and agencies should recognise the need for safe legal abortion as an integral part of sexual and reproductive health services for young people, and provide full, on-going funding for such services. The United Kingdom Government should, in particular, take measures to deal with the anomaly of the right to legal abortion services for the women of Northern Ireland.
The statistics have already been quoted and they speak for themselves. The need to pay attention to adolescent childbirth and unsafe abortion is a matter of life and death for young people in less-developed countries. In Zambia, a quarter of maternal deaths due to self-inflicted abortion are of girls under 19. The vulnerability of young women is forcefully illustrated by the rape statistics in South Africa, where one rape occurs every 50 seconds. In Northern Ireland, which is, of course, part of the UK, there is little sex education. There is a high rate of sexual abuse and both teenage pregnancies and abortion exist. Abortion is a sensitive issue, but it is essential to address it if progress is to be made in providing sexual and reproductive health services for young people.
Our fourth recommendation was that Governments and agencies should ensure that health professionals who work with young people are committed to and fully trained in confidentiality, that they understand its importance and understand also what it means in practice. It is clear that young people do not trust health professionals when they


consult them about sexual and reproductive health matters. It is of paramount importance for success that a service is confidential. It is a real issue for young people. They do not trust grown-ups, and that applies across the board; they do not trust them at all.
A young person's right to confidentiality and to receive health information and services is recognised under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which has been ratified by all but two member countries. The convention lays a responsibility on health professionals to provide adolescents with information and services, even if that goes against the parents' wishes, provided that the child has developed the necessary capacity and maturity to understand the nature and consequences of the information and services to be provided. The Cairo and Beijing women's conferences criticised the failure of health professionals to observe and respect informed consent and confidentiality in respect of adolescent girls. It was clear that all the NGOs working with young people were aware of the importance of confidentiality. That needs to be translated into practice by ensuring that health professionals are equally committed.
Our fifth recommendation was that Governments and agencies should encourage and provide sustainable funding for the provision of support and information for parents to help to facilitate their communication with their children on sex and sexual relationships. Parents emerged as a neglected species. There was general recognition that they needed help to fulfil their roles and to know how to support their children's needs. There is evidence to show that young people want their parents to talk to them and be willing to talk about sex. However, it seemed that many parents found that difficult.
Our final recommendation was that Governments and agencies should take measures to make emergency contraception as widely available as possible for young people. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is a long-standing family planning doctor. She has called for emergency contraception to be made freely available to young people. Research demonstrates clearly how difficult it is for young people to obtain emergency contraception. Many do not even know who to approach or, as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) so starkly said, they are refused help when they seek it.
At 1.1 billion, this is history's largest generation of young people between the ages of 15 and 24, and their numbers are rapidly increasing in many countries. The reproductive behaviour of all these young people will determine our planet's future. It is critical that all societies address their education, employment and, especially, health needs. I hope that the Government will take a lead.

Mr. Gary Streeter: This is the first time that I have taken part in a debate in the House on population and development. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) who, unlike me, has been an instigator of and regular contributor to debates on population growth. I pay tribute to his expertise, which was very much in evidence today. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who is a regular

contributor to this important subject and someone whom I would consider to be an expert on it. I think that it is obvious to us all that population growth is a serious issue and a real danger, given the finite resources of our world.
In one sense, the statistics say it all. However, the evidence of our eyes as we travel confirms and underlines the statistics. As I have travelled to various parts of the world over the past six years, three things have struck me that relate to the subject that we are discussing. When I went to India for the first time, I was struck more than anything else, apart from the poverty, by the sheer volume of people in every city, town and village. It seemed that they were living their lives by the side of the road. Nine hundred million people is an awful lot of people.
I went to Nigeria shortly before Christmas. Again, I was struck by the sheer volume of people. There are 120 million in that relatively small country. A fifth of all black Africans are Nigerians; the sheer numbers are overwhelming.
The second striking feature that I have observed in my recent escapades is the staggeringly high percentage of young people in those countries. The percentage of the population below the age of 20 in Kenya is a bewildering 58 per cent. In Nigeria, 55 per cent. of the population is below the age of 20. The corresponding figure in Zimbabwe is 57 per cent. and in Uganda, 50 per cent. of the population is aged 14 and under. Those are young, fertile people who will make their own contribution to the subject under discussion.
The third fact that I have observed as I have travelled is that middle-class families tend to have three or four children, whereas poor families have eight, nine or perhaps more children. The reasons are obvious and frequently rehearsed. It is worth saying that the situation used to be the same in Britain and throughout the now industrialised world.
The inevitable conclusion is that population growth is clearly related to poverty, lack of education and lack of access to good-quality family planning and reproductive health services. The 1994 international conference on population and development in Cairo was an important event. For the first time ever, a consensus emerged among most nations on a raft of measures to be implemented over a 20-year period. A programme of action was settled.
Five years on, few of us would dispute that the right objectives were set: sustained economic growth in the context of sustainable development; education, especially for girls; and universal access to reproductive health services, including family planning and sexual health. There is no need for wholesale review or reform of those objectives, which have stood the test of time. The difficulty, as ever, is in the implementation. There is no magic bullet.
It is clear that restricting population growth in the developing world is part of the wider issues of poverty and lack of opportunity which afflict too many people around the world, although in that context, the issue requires a special focus. Population constraint should not be seen as separate from the wider development agenda; it is part of the same development challenge. As more and more communities achieve sustainable development, access to education, better health care, rising living standards and a greater sense of security and stability, as surely as night follows day, the number of children per household will fall.
There are examples of success. In the Indian state of Kerala, remarkable progress has been made in reducing the birth rate to half the Indian average and less than that of China. Although I accept that that is not directly related to economic success, it follows an enlightened commitment to investment in health, education and more equitable social relations. Infant mortality rates are a quarter of the average for India and half that of China. In India as a whole, one in two girl children drops out of primary school. In Kerala, completion of education is almost universal. Investment in education and health care in Kerala has played a central role in reducing fertility rates to levels comparable to those of industrialised countries.
In South Korea, the combination of rapid economic growth, universal access to primary health care, education and employment opportunities have caused the population growth rate to tumble. Those are examples of best practice and progress, from which we can take encouragement. The situation is not hopeless—it is simply immensely difficult.
The issue of population growth is not a separate agenda. It should motivate us to redouble our efforts to reduce poverty, build capacity, boost health care and education, and increase economic activity and opportunity throughout the world.
I have just returned from a visit to east Africa. I have seen slums in other parts of the world, but the slums that I saw in Nairobi last week were among the worst that I have ever seen. It is offensive, unnecessary and unacceptable in the modem world that people living in such circumstances do not have choices. We must all redouble our efforts to help.
I support the efforts of the British Governments, both before and after the election on 1 May 1997. We have a good track record, and I am sure that under the current Secretary of State, that progress will continue. I take this opportunity to say something that I have said in many meetings outside the House. I think that we were wrong under the previous Government to cut the aid budget. We are a rich nation, even in recession. I understand the pressures on the Treasury, but it is important that a nation such as ours should be compassionate and generous, provided that we make sure that our aid programme is effective.
Too many millions of pounds have been wasted in the past. We must continue to give a lead through our compassion and our generosity. We are a rich nation and we can make a difference. Many mistakes have been made by Governments, development agencies, aid agencies, NGOs and all of us over the past 30 years in aid and development policy. Perhaps a new consensus is emerging. There is increasing recognition of the importance of good governance, market-based economies, capacity building, empowering women, and access to education and health care, so that we can build on the lessons of the past and do more to bring about sustainable development in the developing world.
There are grounds for cautious optimism. It is important that we do not abandon hope; if we do, nothing will change. In one of the slums in Nairobi, I spoke to a young lady called Benedict, who was a grandmother at 30. We had a long conversation, at the end of which she told me that at the age of 30, she had given up hope that her life could change, or that things would ever be any different

for her. She had nothing. I urged her not to give up hope, but of course I felt as I spoke that my words were empty. Even if she gives up hope, we must not give up hope on her behalf. It will not be easy, but we can make a difference. Many projects, NGOs and people all over the world are making a difference. I therefore welcome this important debate.
I shall finish with a word about coercion. There is a consensus in the House, but we must spell it out. Coercion in family planning matters is always wrong. Our approach to family planning for the developing world must be guided by the values that we embrace for ourselves. Enforced sterilisation is wrong in the UK and in the developing world. Using abortion as a form of family planning is wrong in the UK and in the developing world. If we do not approach the subject from a framework of values, we will come horribly unstuck.
In the light of those clear guiding principles, I remain uncomfortable with the fact that our Government since the election, as before, continue to contribute towards the Chinese family planning programmes. We have heard horror stories for many years. I admit that I have never seen firm evidence, yet the stories and doubts continue. I know that Ministers will say, "Give us the evidence and we will look into it." Will the Minister call on the United Nations to commission an extensive independent inquiry into the matter, so that we can get to the truth? If all is well, let us reassure ourselves and continue the programme. If all is not well, let us use whatever leverage we have to bring to an end the horrendous practices that we hear about. I ask the Minister to respond to that point.
Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for raising this important subject. I pay tribute to the Government's work. They will have the support of those on the Conservative Benches as they continue that important undertaking.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Like all hon. Members who have spoken, I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing time for a debate on such an important issue and, as he said, at such an appropriate time. I thank all those who contributed to the debate, which has been well informed and almost entirely united. That is a testimony to the work done by the all-party group.
As my hon. Friend and others remarked, Cairo was a landmark agreement for international development. We cannot overestimate its impact on the way in which Governments, international organisations, donors and civil society think about and deal with population issues. The debate has made that clear.
The Cairo conference asked fundamental questions about people and poverty—as hon. Members said, we have to address issues beyond only population and reproductive health—and about the future prospect for the sustainable development of our planet. It also agreed a set of bold solutions, with a focus on individuals' right to the highest possible standards of reproductive health. The goals agreed at Cairo form the basis of many of the international development targets that inspire the British Government's strategy for improving all aspects of poor people's lives.
In less than six months, a United Nations General Assembly special session will decide what progress the world has made in implementing the Cairo goals. As I said, today's debate has given hon. Members an opportunity to provide early input into that process. The Government greatly encourage such early debates on international discussions. As the review commences, I am pleased to share some of the Government's perspectives on progress made, lessons learned and obstacles encountered in taking forward the Cairo agenda, and on how we must do better in future.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for his wholehearted support of the Government's action. In the House's previous debate on the issue, I was the Opposition spokesman and said almost exactly the same as he said today. That is an encouraging development—although it is even more encouraging that I am now on the Government Benches. However, that is another matter.
As hon. Members said, our planet's population has almost doubled since the 1960s. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly said, evidence suggests that the world grows more unequal as it grows more populous. The gap in per capita income between the richest and poorest fifth of the world has also doubled since 1960.
Although population growth rates have peaked, the world continues to grow by more than 80 million people a year. If our newspaper headlines are right in saying that the "population explosion" is over, they should also deal with the fact that the children of the population explosion—1 billion young people, the largest generation in human history—are now entering their reproductive years. As my hon. Friends said, the choices made by those young people will determine the prospects for a fair, healthy and stable world which is fit for future generations. We have to ensure that those young people are given a choice, and that they are not denied the means to make their choice.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, 10 years ago, we expected that, in the next century, the world population would reach about 14 billion before levelling off. Today, thankfully, the UN expects 10 billion to be the upper population limit. How did that remarkable change occur? The answer, as he said, has been in modern family planning. It is encouraging that 57 per cent. of the world's couples are now using modern family planning methods, compared with 9 per cent. 30 years ago. There has been a great improvement.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I had rather understood my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to say that part of the success demonstrated by the figures that the Minister is quoting was attributable to events in China. My hon. Friend was not proud of those events—the one-child policy, forced sterilisation, forced abortion until birth and the killing of girl babies. What part have those events played in the figures that the Minister is quoting?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady is on one of her hobby-horses. As it has been raised, I should perhaps deal now with the important issue of China.
We are concerned about reports of reproductive abuses in China. We regularly raise the issue of human rights in our dialogue with Peking, both bilaterally and with our European Union partners. We all want there to be changes in policy and practice in China, and we fully support constructive engagement by responsible international organisations.
When I was in China, some years ago, I saw in practice the type of independent evaluation requested by the hon. Member for South-West Devon. I also read the results of that evaluation, which does not reach the same conclusions as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon, South will be the first to agree that change is required not only in China, but in many other places, too.
I should like very briefly to deal with a few other points made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has asked whether the United Kingdom is contributing its fair share towards fulfilling the Cairo commitments. United Kingdom assistance for population and reproductive health accounts for 3.5 per cent. of our total aid spend. Moreover, that figure does not include the money that we are giving to the World bank and to the European Commission. We are, therefore, making a very substantial commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and other hon. Members also asked about what the European Community is doing to address the issue. We have encouraged the EC to do more, and have now seconded a United Kingdom national expert to the Commission to work on the matter. Although we have seen changes, we shall press for more action by the EC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie also asked what we are doing to deal with the human immune deficiency virus and the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. We are making a huge, and increasing, contribution to dealing with that problem. Three weeks ago, in South Africa, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced our commitment to programme £100 million on HIV-AIDS work over the next three years. The bulk of that will be targeted on sub-Saharan Africa. It is a huge, and increasing, contribution.
I do not have time to deal with all the issues that have been raised in the debate, although I shall write to hon. Members if I have been unable to reply to specific points. However, I should deal with the abortion issue, which has been raised by several hon. Members.
The Cairo consensus on abortion is clear and—as far as the Government are concerned—non-negotiable: abortion must not be promoted as a method of family planning, and we must work to avoid the need for it. Family planning plays an essential role in achieving that goal. However, we must recognise the reality of abortion. There are many reasons why a woman may seek to terminate a pregnancy. If freely chosen, a woman should be able to do so without risk of life-threatening consequences to her health. I hope that all hon. Members will realise that unsafe abortion is a serious public health risk in developing countries.
I should now like to try to deal with the main question asked by hon. Members—what will the Government do to follow up the Cairo conference? As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, next month, in The Hague, there will be an intergovernmental forum,


as a precursor to the General Assembly meeting in New York. Moreover, the Secretary of State herself will lead the United Kingdom delegation at the United Nations General Assembly special session, to underline our commitment to the international conference on population and development-plus-five process.
Cairo brought together 180 countries in unprecedented agreement about the type of action needed to make a real difference to reproductive heath and the rights of all people. Hon. Members who were there, or who read about it in the media, will remember how narrowly that consensus was achieved. Therefore, Cairo-plus-five must, first, move the debate forward, not reopen it.
Secondly, the ICPD must reinvigorate international political will. Thirdly, the review must consolidate progress. It must identify the strategies that worked best in advancing the Cairo goals, understand them better and ensure that they are disseminated and put into practice more widely.
Fourthly, we must focus attention on priorities in which intensified support is needed. We believe that more concerted and coherent global action is needed—on HIV-AIDS, on maternal health, on meeting the needs of young people and on contraceptive supplies.
In development, we talk about food security. As HIV prevalence is as high as one in four people in parts of urban Africa, reproductive health commodities, such as male and female condoms, are also basic needs. The international community, therefore, must work harder to ensure contraceptive security. To do that, we have to achieve agreement on a set of effective milestones in better monitoring ICPD implementation.
The Cairo strategy, and all the international development goals, stand or fall on Governments' ability to judge the progress that they are making. We have to support developing countries' capacity in statistical analysis and data gathering. In 1994, the ICPD did not foresee the need for a new benchmark on the global progression of HIV. As I said, we believe that such a benchmark is now urgently needed to spur more intensive efforts in preventing the spread of HIV.
Fifthly, we must position reproductive health as a central priority for international action, and further clarify the role of relevant multilateral actors, particularly the international UN architecture.
Finally, we must distil key "take home" messages to direct coherent and concerted international action in the coming years. They should—like Cairo itself—resonate and stick in the mind of policy makers. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said, we shall achieve our objectives through partnership.
The Government look forward to working on the issue with the House in the coming six months and beyond. Subsequent debates in the House on the issue will inform the action and encourage the work undertaken by the Government on behalf of the House.

Points of Order

11 am

Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a brief, but nevertheless important, point of order concerning the rights of this House, the rights of Members and the danger that precedent may be broken today. I understand that there is to be a statement today on House of Lords reform. Having checked precedent, I discovered that—going back to the time of Asquith and, more recently, in Harold Wilson's time as Prime Minister—major statements on House of Lords reforms and the Second Reading of Bills were given by the Prime Minister.
It is unusual for me to quote Harold Wilson, but in 1969, he said:
It is in accordance with precedent, Mr. Speaker, that any major legislative proposals involving major constitutional change, reform of our Parliamentary system, the constitution and powers of another place, should be presented to the House by the Prime Minister of the day."—[Official Report, 3 February 1969; Vol. 777, c. 45.]
What can you and your colleagues do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that all Members of the House have the same rights as our predecessors had in 1969, in other reform measures this century, in Asquith's time and in measures presented by Gladstone in the last century? If all those Prime Ministers thought it appropriate and right to report to this House on their proposals for major constitutional change—and were following precedent by so doing—surely the current Prime Minister should not treat this House with contempt, but should come here in person.
If reform of the House of Lords is, in the view of the Prime Minister, an important people's priority, surely he should tell this House and, through this House, the people of this country what he proposes, not leave it to one of his Ministers.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the House went into recess before Christmas, British troops were in combat in Iraq. It is also the precedent, on a matter of such gravity, that the Prime Minister of the day reports to the House from the Dispatch Box. I have waited patiently for the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to report to the House. Following that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is not a matter on which I can rule; it is entirely a matter for the Government.
In respect of the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I have no knowledge of whether a statement is to be made today, but the question of who makes such statements is entirely a matter for the Government. His point of order, which is taking up private Members' time, should be made if and when that statement is made to the House.

Mr. Michael Jack: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it an entirely different point of order?

Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it an entirely different point of order?

Mr. Jack: Of course. Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it an entirely different point of order?

Mr. Jack: It is entirely different.
I awoke this morning to radio reports that there was a significant development in terms of constitutional legislation. Details of it seemed to be available, in plentiful quantity, to the BBC. Can you assist Members of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by making clear whether it is a discourtesy to the House that that type of information has been made available, before being made available to Parliament? If the Prime Minister has had anything to do with releasing that information, perhaps you would care to deprecate that action from the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has always made it clear to the House that important decisions, if they are to be made, should be announced to the House first of all. Perhaps we can move on to private Members' business.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Peter Brooke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have dealt adequately with that matter. This morning is private Members' time. There will be adequate time to discuss all these issues at the appropriate time. It is important that we move on to—

Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it an entirely separate point of order?

Mr. Bruce: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All right, I shall take it.

Mr. Bruce: I know that the Chair is keen to ensure that the rights of Back Benchers are looked after. Before Christmas, I asked the Prime Minister a question at Question Time. His response was that I had my facts wrong on long-term unemployment among young people, effectively saying that I was misleading the House with the figures that I quoted.
I wrote to the Prime Minister last year, giving him the full facts and asking—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is clearly not the time to raise matters of that sort.

Horticulture

Mr. Tim Boswell: I should say at the outset that, although the debate may have lost a few moments because of the points of order, they were about matters that are of great concern to all Members of this House, and I do not resent the exchanges that have taken place. I shall go on immediately to the problems of the horticulture industry.
I am delighted and honoured to have the privilege of initiating a brief debate on the important topic of horticulture. It is nice to have the support of a number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, although I am conscious that some hon. Members with important constituency interests in horticulture are not able to attend the debate—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, who has duties in respect of that Committee. However, there is a good attendance, because this is an important subject.
I shall give a little context. Many of my family traditionally have been growers in the Vale of Evesham and, although I have never lived there, I retain close links with the area and with those of my family who still practise horticulture there. It is perhaps a sign of the change in the industry that a number of them have either restructured their businesses or have gone out of the industry.
I used to be a plum grower on my farm in my constituency, and that provided valuable experience in terms of the technology of growing and the requirements of marketing, either directly at the farm gate or through wholesale markets. Therefore one has seen the tremendous changes that have taken place, and continue to take place, in the industry. I shall return to that point.
My second experience of horticulture is not unrelated, because I asked for the horticulture portfolio when I was posted to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the years 1995 to 1997, as Parliamentary Secretary. I can assure the House that I do not intend to rehearse the difficulties, or the triumphs, of that time, but I should record my personal appreciation for the high quality of the advice given by MAFF officials to Ministers—I am sure that that continues—and for the lively involvement of distinguished members of the industry in the fortunes of that industry. That is a helpful and constructive partnership.
It is necessary at the outset to establish two major and distinctive features of the British horticulture industry, in comparison with its perhaps better known farm equivalent. Not all farmers know nothing about horticulture and, especially on the field vegetable side, there may be a close relationship.
The horticulture industry, as broadly defined, has an output valued at slightly under £2 billion a year. Such definition is difficult, partly because of the greater retail involvement of horticulture in comparison with the majority of agriculture, which represents foods that go on for further processing before sale.
The industry is worth slightly under £2 billion and, although it is an imprecise measure, I used to calculate that it was worth about 10 per cent. of British agricultural


output. Despite being comparatively small proportionately, horticulture represents almost as much diversity as the rest of the agriculture industry. For example, many producers of salad onions or salad crops have been doing relatively well—although some will probably write to me to say that they have not—because of their specialist production. Ethnic foods such as ochre are produced for an ethnic minority market and, increasingly, for a British market as well, because people have diversified their tastes. Others produce bedding plants, nursery stock and traditional top or soft fruit, so the industry is extremely varied.
One of horticulture's distinctive features is that it is an intensive labour employer, whereas most of agriculture is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was telling me only today that there are an estimated 30,000 full-time equivalents in Kent alone. I have always worked on a figure of more than 50,000 full-time workers engaged in horticulture, which is almost as many as there are salaried farm workers in the rest of agriculture.
A second feature is that, traditionally, horticulture has relied little on Government support. Like pig and poultry farming, but unlike most of the traditional agricultural regimes, it has been a light or unsupported regime. Long may that continue, because no one in horticulture would want to send the signal that stepping up the subsidy would benefit the industry. That could have the effect that we have seen elsewhere in the common agricultural policy, where successive Governments have tried to remove some of the subsidy and reduce the unnecessary costs in the system, so that the outcome is more market related.

Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at that important point in his remarks. Although I accept his point about subsidy, does he agree that it is important that the Government of the day encourage and support the industry? Does he find it worrying, as I do, to read continuing reports in the Grower magazine about the number of occasions when the Minister directly responsible for horticulture, the noble Lord Donoughue, has had to cancel those encouraging engagements?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He was a most distinguished horticulture Minister before my time and he gave great encouragement to the industry. He is entitled to comment. I realise some of the difficulties of this debate. The noble Lord with day-to-day responsibility for horticulture is in another place and, in fairness, some cancellations have taken place because of factors outside his control. May I revert to the point about perceived support for the industry by Ministers as I bring my remarks to a close? My right hon. Friend makes a substantial point when he says that what we do not want from Government is lots of money, but what we do want is lots of encouragement and perceived attempts to solve the industry's problems.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton—Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Boswell: I shall give way just once more because I am conscious of the time restraints.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend cover in his speech the issue of changes in Government employment

legislation? Increasing employment costs, particularly for some horticultural activities that require large gangs of lowly paid people who would otherwise have no employment whatever, could put the horticulture industry at a serious competitive disadvantage.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend reads the runes of what I have already said about the importance of horticulture as an employer, as a clear precursor to my remarks later in my speech. His analysis is entirely right. At this point, I simply say that the most important and in many ways the most refreshing element of horticulture is that it has traditionally been an unsupported or lightly supported sector. That has left it close to the market. People have been entrepreneurial and have reacted in a variety of ways. The issue now before the House is whether that native spirit, which Keynes called an animal spirit—that determination to seek a market and exploit it to make a profit—is enough to take people through the current difficulties.
Many sectors of the industry now face severe market conditions and low profitability. It will be no service to the industry to cry wolf or to say that this is the end of the industry. It is easy for tabloid newspapers to write, as they have on one or two occasions, "This is the end of the English apple industry—there will be no more Coxes". Neither the Minister nor most hon. Members who know about horticulture believe that that is so. However, to prevent it from happening, we must recognise that there are some problems.
Let me return to what I said about diversity. It is important that we analyse coolly the problems in the various sectors. Some specialist growers may be relatively prosperous at present. Large integrated businesses that may be listening to this debate may have found ways of controlling their costs and have a strong tie-up with the marketing chain. They may be using high technology and running extremely successful and professional businesses. However, people in between may be caught between a number of stalls and have to find the right niche. Although there are no large growers in my constituency, there are many relatively small businesses that supply bedding plants or nursery stock, and they are an extremely important part of diversification and providing competition in the market.
Although we must not oversell the problems, I should like to draw a number of them to the House's attention. Some come from within the industry—what one might call the MAFF sector—and others, importantly, come from elsewhere. I shall begin by dealing with the MAFF-related problems. First, there is the question of marketing support. As has already been mentioned, the regime is not generally heavy. The last thing that we would want is a return, for example in the European structure, to the old tradition of a heavy reliance on intervention, often in a wasteful and useless way.
I was pleased that, during my time at MAFF, we achieved agreement on restructuring the European marketing regime support and a new emphasis was placed on producer organisations and market development. It would be helpful if the Minister of State could, in responding, bring the House up to date on that matter. Obviously, there was a surge which happened, coincidentally, at about the time of the change of Government as people made their initial bids—MAFF was particularly helpful in securing some flexible regimes


for them to do so. However, I am not clear whether the trail has gone dead yet or how much that is continuing to be developed as market conditions change.
The second area where market support is important is in relation to objective 5b. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) is in the Chamber and may seek to participate in the debate. We all know that objective 5b may, in turn, be subject to change under the European negotiations on the matter, but it is important that areas of economic strain should be able to raise the value added of their produce and find suitable and distinctive market niches. Objective 5b, or something like it, is an important vehicle for doing that.
One area in which I took great interest was the south-west Horticulture 2000 initiative. I hope to have the privilege of launching Cornish King, which was a successful result of that initiative, and I hope that it will lead to other things. That area of market development, which does not always involve large sums, but levers in partnership approaches and other resources, is the sensible way to proceed in terms of public support for marketing.
The third area is that of research, which is also complex. Horticultural Research International and its institutes and new privatised technology arm are of high quality. They are world-class operations. I know many of the operators and I have a tremendous regard for what they have done. There is always a debate in Government about how much can be given to research, and it is terribly important that the Government support the industry by providing research infrastructure, basic research and the ability to call on specialists to deal with problems that develop. I hope that we will have the Minister's assurance on that.
Following, but in no sense subordinate to, that is the much more close-to-market involvement of the Horticultural Development Council. This year, there is to be another poll to ratify, as it were, the continuation of that council. I hope that the Ministry will give as much lead as it properly can, and that the House will give a lead to the industry to ensure that the poll endorses the HDC's work. It is important not only for the cash that it raises and spends on behalf of the industry, but as a sign to all arms of government and to the marketing chain that growers take this matter seriously. They want the council to progress and be successful.
I should flag up the only fly in the ointment, as the National Farmers Union has mentioned it to me. The NFU is concerned that MAFF has recently cut funding for PhDs in this area. Perhaps the Minister will also comment on that. We need a continuing flow of high-quality people into the industry at doctorate and skilled technician level. This is not a task that can be done by second-rate people, at whatever level of their employment. It needs the best research brains and the best technologists trained to the highest level. The margins do not allow for anything other than that approach.
The third area where the market situation is relevant has an impact on the others. I am talking not about public money, but about the involvement of the supermarkets. Horticulture is distinctive because much, although not all, of its produce is sold to the consumer in a recognisable form—we can see an apple or a pear, but we cannot see the grain that an arable farmer produces because it is

turned into bread. A high proportion of final output goes through the multiples. The NFU's estimate is that upwards of 75 per cent. goes through the multiples.
In many areas of agriculture—as in horticulture—there is a lively debate about the role of the multiples. I have always felt that megaphone diplomacy is unhelpful. One side tells the other that it is being ripped off, and there is no mutuality of interest. I believe that it does not matter how it is operated, or what the legal form of the contract is, but both parties—the grower and the supermarket—must work together to provide an acceptable and preferred product for the customer. There is an emphasis on working together, and that is positive, but it does not remove the need for fair treatment.
We should welcome the way in which the industry as a whole has worked together on product assurance, and has established crop protocols. Supermarkets should not, at the final point of sale, mix or dilute British produce that has been raised to that protocol level with a product imported from the European Union or elsewhere that has not been grown to that standard. In an ideal world, the British protocols should form the international standard for good practice for the production of the product in question. It is much better if British produce is marketed as British, unless it is not available on a continuing basis—one hopes that it will be.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend is making an important point. One of the crucial elements of the intervention of the supermarkets is that they are increasingly and properly demanding higher standards from British growers. However, whenever they are short of British produce, they are quite willing to import products for which there is no guarantee that they meet the protocol on the use of pesticides or fertilisers. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is on to a very good point. That problem is of concern, and we need to find ways to prevent such practice.
We should also consider horticultural markets generally, because they comprise more than just supermarkets. I hope that MAFF will continue to seek practical opportunities to bring parties together to ensure that the horticultural market system, which has not worked as well as it might in the recent past, is rationalised, made efficient and provides an important additional service for the catering trade and specialist outlets that can best be served in that way.
I shall deal briefly with some of the concerns that are outside the narrowly agricultural sector. In the past two years, the strength of sterling has caused as many difficulties for growers as anything else. I do not intend, or have the time, to go on about that today. The state of the weather has also affected sales, as it has affected the growing experience.
I want to leave three specifics with the Minister. First, planning varies hugely from area to area. In areas where horticulture is understood, such as the Sussex plain or the fens, it is often easier to obtain planning permission than it is in areas adjoining major conurbations, such as South Ribble—I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), who is present for the debate—or parts of the Vale of Evesham. I hope that the Minister will give the right guidance to his colleagues.
Secondly, I do not intend to rehearse the arguments about the national minimum wage and the fairness at work package, but three major conceptual problems in agriculture must be resolved in discussions. We must ensure that there is a proper fit with the Agricultural Wages Order 1998, which is not easy. There should be an acceptable form of treatment to produce a fair basis for piecework and for the analysis of rest periods. There should also be an acceptable way of keeping records. However responsible a gang master may be, if there are 50 people in a field, a practical way must be found of keeping score. That may get more complex when we get into the rest of the fairness at work package.
Thirdly, I have been surprised by the vehemence of representations on the pesticides tax. The Minister should acknowledge that huge progress has been made in integrated crop management and in crop protection, particularly for crops grown under glass in a glasshouse. It is completely incorrect to say—although people still believe it to be the case—that horticultural produce in this country is drenched in chemicals. There are likely to be fewer chemicals on a British product than on its imported equivalent, but, in any case, they will be controlled by statute and there is a strong commercial interest right across the sector for them to be reduced to a minimum.
We should also acknowledge that horticultural produce is offered directly and needs to be visually attractive. Pest control is a way of achieving that. Our concern is that the pesticide tax, if imposed, could be another imposition of costs without a matching benefit to the industry. Frankly, given the horticulture's present economic position, it could not take much more of that.
I readily acknowledge that Ministers cannot solve all those problems, certainly not this morning. However, they need to be seen to be caring about them, raising the profile of this important and excellent industry and, above all, consulting its practitioners on the best way of overcoming them.

Mr. David Borrow: I welcome the opportunity to discuss horticulture. As a new Member, in the past 20 months, I have been struck by the extent to which the agriculture debate in the House has been dominated by areas of agriculture that are directly dependent on support either from the Government or through the common agricultural policy. I suppose that that is understandable, but horticulture is an important sector. The Government's involvement may not be as direct as it is in livestock or dairy farming or in the grain sector, but they could play a more proactive role in leading horticulture forward.
My constituency is mainly suburban, but parts of it that were previously represented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) are dominated by a growing horticultural sector. The villages of Banks, Tarleton and Hesketh Bank have, for many generations, been market gardening. They have produced vegetable and salad crops, and there are many glasshouses.
It is interesting to note the way in which the industry has changed over the past 20 or 30 years, and the reasons for the problems that have arisen. When I first went to live in Preston in the mid-1970s, it was said that the cheapest fresh produce in the country could be found

there, because of the town's wholesale market and its proximity to market gardening in west Lancashire and Fylde. During the past 20 or 30 years, however, there has been a change in the way in which the horticulture sector sells its products. Little of the produce of market gardeners and salad crop growers is now sold through the wholesale market; the vast majority is sold directly to the supermarket chains, a handful of which effectively control the salad and vegetable market.
Another effect has been the consolidation of the sector. Many of the small family enterprises—such as small family farms—that existed 20 or 30 years ago have disappeared. Smallholdings that existed in my constituency then have since been sold. Some are operating as part of a larger company, while others have had houses built on them, and are not producing anything. Although there are still many small growers in my constituency, the industry there is dominated by five larger growers, the biggest of which—a company called Huntapak—employs some 300 people. Many small growers are therefore at a disadvantage in negotiations with supermarkets.
Only last weekend, I talked to a couple of growers in Hesketh Bank about lettuce growing in Lancashire, and the relationship with supermarkets. Many growers are not big enough to have direct contracts with supermarkets; a lorry comes round, each of them puts a certain number of boxes on to it, and it goes to the supermarket. If the first box from the first grower is opened and its contents are not considered to be up to scratch, it is not uncommon for not just that grower's boxes but the whole consignment to be returned, and to end up being ploughed into the ground and wasted.
I regularly hear of growers in my area being paid 8p or 9p per cauliflower, and then seeing them priced at 60p in the supermarket. They would like a better relationship between the two amounts, but they are reluctant to put their criticisms on record, because they depend on contracts with the supermarkets.
I have been investigating supply chain networks in my constituency. Huntapak has land in East Anglia where it grows carrots, which are sent to Lancashire to be processed at its plant in Tarleton. They are then sent, in little boxes, to supermarket warehouses in Birmingham or London, ending up—probably—on supermarket shelves in Norwich or Southport. One wonders how much of the shelf price reflects the cost of moving fresh produce around the country. In many supermarkets—certainly in my part of Lancashire—it is virtually impossible to buy salad crops and vegetables that were grown within 20 miles of Preston, although some of the best in the country are. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to know where the produce that is available has come from. Serious questions must be asked about the role of supermarkets, and the way in which the industry is to develop.
As I know from speaking to growers, the situation is difficult. Farmers, by their nature, are very independent, and, unlike farmers in the rest of Europe, have no tradition of co-operation. Given that the retail sector is snow dominated by a handful of major retailers, the producing sector must try to find a mechanism to remove the imbalance between producer and retailer. The classic market forces mechanism has led to an unfair market consisting of a multiplicity of small growers and a handful of major purchasers. I do not know how much of a role


the Government can have, but the industry must consider how it can become competitive vis-a-vis the supermarket chains. As there are pressures on the supermarkets to sell food as cheaply as possible, they exert downward pressures on their suppliers, who are in a weak negotiating position.
Let me mention some minor issues, some of which have already been referred to. One is training in horticulture. Lancashire Growers, an employer-supported organisation based in Banks, in my constituency, but with members in several Lancashire constituencies, has operated a training agency for many years. Unfortunately, pressure is being exerted through the training and enterprise councils to reduce not the number of places, but the amount that is available per trainee. That makes it difficult for small training organisations to carry out first-class training.
The number of horticulture trainees is not vast. We are talking not about establishing engineering training courses in the middle of towns and cities but about agricultural communities, and the need to ensure that training is available in young people's localities, where they live and work. I fear that, if the pressure continues, Lancashire will lose local training opportunities provided through local agencies. I shall not go into more detail, as I shall pursue the issue elsewhere, but I wanted to flag it up.
Others have mentioned planning conflicts. During the short time in which I have been an MP, I have been involved in a number of planning disputes, many of which have arisen in the villages of Tarleton, Banks and Hesketh Bank. Villages which, a generation or two ago, were essentially farming villages—albeit with a reasonable population and fairly high employment in the growing industry—are now becoming both agricultural and suburban. People who work in Preston, Manchester or Liverpool but live in those villages expect to find what they would find in a suburb of a major city, rather than hearing enormous trailers delivering produce, or returning empty, in the middle of the night. There will always be nuisance, conflict and difficulty when an agricultural industry co-exists with domestic, suburban-style village life.
One of my concerns is that a number of companies in my constituency have grown out of the agricultural sector and are now involved in packaging or such industries. They were set up usually in a shed on a farm to supply a product that was needed by the horticultural sector. They have been successful and developed, but they face planning constraints as to whether they continue to exist, even in those villages where they grew. If they do not continue, what happens to the people who live in those villages and work in those industries? The conflicts in relation to that matter are interesting. Perhaps guidance in those sectors would be useful.
One of the remarkable things that arose in the meetings that I had with growers is that wage levels are above the minimum wage. That is not an issue. In my constituency, the unemployment rate is about 1.8 per cent., so we are not talking about a vast number of unemployed people, but I know of growers who have struggled to fill their vacancies. They have worked through jobcentres and many of the people whom they have recruited have been from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire—from Skelmersdale and such areas. The

difficulty has been getting people who have been out of work and have no tradition of working in the agricultural industry to do what is expected of them in the agricultural industry.
Few people in my constituency would want to work in agriculture who do not already do so. Therefore, the industry recruits from urban areas. In doing so, it recruits people with no tradition of working in the industry. The Employment Service needs to recognise that in terms of the support that it gives. In addition, when people, particularly youngsters, are recruited into the industry, there needs to be follow-up support from the service, recognising the difficulty when people get involved in a work culture that is different from what they would normally expect in an urban area.
There is the difficulty of finding accommodation for people in the agricultural sector on relatively low wages. I am sure that Conservative Members will have similar problems to those which I have experienced. Many people who work in agriculture and were brought up in the industry have to move out of the area and commute 20 miles each day because no property is available in the agricultural villages where they were born within the price range that they can afford.
I make a general point that follows from many of the discussions that I have had with the sector. I recognise that the Government's role is not one of giving big subsidies. The sector expects to compete and to compete fairly, but there are concerns that the regime throughout Europe is not all together fair.
On issues such as pesticides and fuel taxation, there is concern that the climate on this side of the English channel should also exist on the other side. It is difficult when imports of salad goods or vegetables from Spain or Holland can come to the UK and undercut those of our producers. They can do that because of conditions that have been influenced by Government decisions in those countries, which make it difficult for UK producers to compete. The onus is on the Government to seek a level playing field across Europe, so that our growers can compete with growers in the rest of Europe.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I want to be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak.
I emphasise the fact that the horticulture industry is big. It employs many people. If the threats to employment in horticulture arose in some other industries, there would be a huge furore in the press and so on.
The minimum wage issue is important, not because anyone is trying to run out on his or her obligations, but because of the difficulty that, if employers pay piece rates, one person may decide that he or she wants to earn as much as possible and spend 10 minutes eating a sandwich, and someone else may decide that it is a lovely afternoon and spend two hours eating one. It is difficult to police.
If the minimum wage is to be calculated on so many hours a day, it gives a terrific bonus to those people who do not want to do any work and may be below the minimum wage level because they have not done any work—not because the money is not there for the taking. Ministers need to look at that carefully.
I should like to raise again an issue that I have often raised. When he was the Minister responsible for social security, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead


(Mr. Field) came to my constituency and had a look at the problems. There is an absurd difficulty that it sometimes takes up to six weeks for people to get back into the social security system if they have left work because they think that there will be the opportunity for picking.
If there is no picking because it rains all the time, those people have a problem. They are not the ones with savings; they do not have any savings to rely on. Many people in my constituency who would like to go picking are saying that it is not worth the candle. We need to look at that matter because they want to work, and they would be happy to work, but the meshing with the social security system makes it extraordinarily difficult for them to do so.
The quotas on foreign pickers—foreign students coming in to pick—need to be re-examined. I share the Government's general view that work permits should not be given for jobs that could easily be filled in Britain. That is wholly appropriate, but, again and again, pickers cannot be found among the local population; they simply are not there.
Many of my farmers, some of whom have a wages bill of £1 million a year, are finding themselves wholly dependent on the reliable work that is done by foreign students and others who have come in because they have a vested interest in getting as much pay as they can and taking it home. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that issue.
The issue of distribution costs is important. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) painted a graphic picture of the pilgrimage of a carrot across the United Kingdom. If the Government continue to push up the price of fuel, the costs of distribution will mount rapidly—much more rapidly than the industry can possibly support.
I should like the Minister to have a careful look at planning regulations. I understand—the point has been made by one of the growers in my constituency—that the waist-high troughs in which, for example, strawberries are grown and which make picking and disease control much easier and so on, may be subject to formal planning regulation that is out of date. Apparently, if a crop is grown whose roots are not in the soil, growers face the full rigour of planning regulation. That must be negotiable, but we perhaps need some help from the Government on it.
I should like to reiterate that very big growers in my constituency and neighbouring areas are frightened of making any form of recognisable complaint about the way in which they are treated by supermarkets. There should be some mechanism to enable people to blow the whistle on supermarkets which, from time to time, abuse their market power and treat growers badly. That does not happen all the time; many of my growers are dependent, and happy to be dependent, on the efforts by supermarkets to drive up quality and all the rest of it. However, when things go wrong, supermarkets can rely on the fact that growers are not prepared to complain because the market to which they can go is tiny. That really does matter.
Finally, I have an entirely constituency point. Brogdale, the site of the national apple and pear collection, has made and is making bold attempts to break out of a debt incurred when the estate was bought, when the market was at its highest conceivable point. Even by the time the negotiations had been finally completed, the estate's value had fallen by about 25 per cent., and it then fell well below that. The debt was colossal.
An element in the debt, over which the Minister has control, is the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, under its regulations, is fully entitled to claim back part of any planning gain that may be negotiated on a part of the estate. If Ministers felt able to assist Brogdale in that way, a valuable national asset—not just in historical and tourist terms, but in terms of genetic development—would be much assisted. After all, MAFF received a huge price for the estate in the first place—an unrealistically high price. I would be grateful if the Minister would look carefully at that matter.

Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome a debate on horticulture, which is important to Cornwall and my constituency. Horticulture has clearly faced a difficult year, for a variety of reasons, such as the strength of the pound and the weather, to which reference has been made, which resulted in a lack of demand for items such as salad crops and garden plants. Little can be done about climatic disadvantages which visit us from time to time, but the main difficulty lies with the fact that we are increasingly trading in a global market.
Everywhere in Britain, we are subjected to the rigours of a global marketplace, and that manifests itself in two ways. One is the change in consumer habits. The fact that so many more people now go on holiday abroad has promoted their desire for more exotic fruits and vegetables. Secondly, supermarkets have increasingly responded to the opportunities of global marketing. They can purchase fruit and vegetables all year round, regardless of the season, and that has undermined domestic production.
The environmental impact has been seen in so-called food miles. Transporting large quantities of fruit and vegetables in order to comply with supermarkets' desire for a distribution network that provides them with the means of supplying their stores in the most competitive way has an environmental impact.
All that has meant that, recently, the United Kingdom has become a net importer of fruit and vegetables. There is now a huge gap between the value of imported fruit and vegetables and home-grown fruit and vegetables. In 1996–97, the value of imported fruit was estimated at £1.5 billion, and that of home-grown fruit at about £240 million.
The major multiples are taking a larger share of the retail market, perhaps up to as much as 75 per cent. Their central purchasing and distribution systems give importers easy access to outlets capable of handling large volumes of produce. Such volumes are necessary to provide the competitive edge for the importer from abroad and the supermarkets. The supermarkets are now the main force in the marketplace. They give consumers a wide variety of fresh fruit and vegetables. We can now eat strawberries all year round.
Strawberries form an important part of the soft fruit growing in my constituency, and some of the contracts that have been drawn up between strawberry growers and supermarkets have been alarming, forward purchasing vast quantities of strawberries and tying up huge acreages so that strawberry growers really have only one marketplace. Strangely enough, written into those contracts is a sale-or-return clause. If strawberries are not


going well, or if there is a bit of a glut, a supermarket can telephone its grower saying that, unless the grower prefers them to go in the bin, it intends to return them.

Mr. John Hayes: I am concerned not just about the sale-or-return clause, but about the way in which supermarkets are dictating a specific type of strawberry. The small sweet English strawberry has virtually died out, not because it is not a better product and people do not like to eat it, but because supermarkets prefer the large strawberry with a longer shelf life which is typically grown in California or Spain. Therefore, they dictate the product as well as the terms that the hon. Gentleman points out.

Mr. Breed: I entirely agree. A longer shelf life is often coupled with the fact that the strawberry tastes like wet blotting paper—no taste at all.
Often, strawberries are not returned to the growers but are consigned to waste, and the grower has to bear the cost because, if he does not want to operate on those terms, or if he kicks up a fuss, he is unlikely to get a contract next time. His opportunities to sell elsewhere are extremely limited.
Growers are squeezed by supermarkets' demands in a variety of ways. Not only do they require products of a certain size, shape and colour, with a particular packaging, but they use the domination of their purchasing departments. In the Tamar valley, one of the premier soft fruit-growing areas in the country, the decline of small shops in Devon and Cornwall diminished growers' opportunities to market their crops. Their ability to sell into the large supermarkets has also diminished because of the amount and type of strawberry that they produce and its seasonality.
The idea that the UK is now a net importer of fruit and vegetables does not lie happily with the concept of a food standards agency. Food producers in other EU countries are not subject to the stringent health and safety regulations imposed on UK producers, particularly with regard to fertilisers and pesticides. Therefore, major retailers are often better off importing fruit and vegetables from other EU countries. That will cause some headaches for the way in which a food standards agency will police some of the products that are increasingly being sold in our multiples.
In addition, climatic conditions in other EU countries, such as the Mediterranean, mean that producers in Spain, Portugal and Italy have an inherent advantage. The UK horticulture industry can survive in an increasingly global marketplace only through innovation. That is where the Government may be able to help. There are opportunities to market specific crops in an innovative way and to produce specific crops for specific markets. I highlight the success of the flower growing industry on the isles of Scilly. It has recognised that it has large competitors in Europe and on the mainland, but it has marketed itself. Scilly flowers, a definable and developing product, are now sold directly, rather than through the multiples or the marketplace.
There is a clear opportunity for those involved in organic produce. That is a growing market in which huge amounts are imported, but, if we get our act together, innovation should allow Britain to produce more.
The Horticultural Development Council is an important element in ensuring that the necessary research and development goes into creating an innovative approach to the challenges that face the industry. Some improvements may be necessary. Added impetus is needed for organisations that will help the industry to innovate and compete properly.
Many residents complain to me about the difference between use and scale in planning applications. Many operations had their planning use agreed many years ago, but the scale of such operations, particularly to meet the demands of the large multiples, means that increasing quantities are being produced on the same amounts of land. That means heavier traffic and increased disruption to the site. The planning authorities need to consider not just the use of land, but the scale of use, because that important aspect of the process is not taken into account.

Mr. Howard Flight: I am grateful for the opportunity to refer to seven issues that have been raised by the horticulture industry in my area. West Sussex is one of the largest areas of activity in the industry, with several thousand employees, many of whom are from my constituency. The area concentrates on the glasshouse side of the industry, which requires heavy capital investment. The smaller producers can survive only in a niche environment. Many of the large producers, who already use robotics and other new production methods, are trading at very narrow margins, despite having taken all the business decisions that they can to survive.
The minimum wage and working time directive have added substantial costs to the industry and brought confusion and conflict with the Agricultural Wages Board. Those problems need to be sorted out. The glasshouse industry feels that the Agricultural Wages Board is no longer relevant to it.
Finance at universities has been mentioned. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has contributed £1.5 million a year and PhDs have been regarded as crucial conduits into the new technology aspects of the industry. That finance is being phased out, but the same conduit is needed if we are to keep up.
I am advised that there are delays in getting new and better pesticides because of the high cost of label registration, which can be up to £50,000 per registration in this country, as against £6,000 in France and only £1,000 in Spain. There should be no political divisions over EU harmonisation on that issue. As has already been said, the industry does not regard the proposed pesticide tax as necessary, because it is already minimising the use of pesticides. There is a particular problem with methyl bromide, the steriliser of land, which was to be phased out in 2005. The Government have advanced the date to 2000, but there is no replacement for that product. If one is not available by 2000, the ban will have to be deferred.
We have had problems of foreign produce, grown with pesticides, appearing in local boxes and being mistested in supermarkets and identified as UK-sourced. Surely supermarket testing should be done at the depot so that it is clear where produce has come from. The rules on pesticides are more lax elsewhere. Consumers should know whether the food that they buy in the supermarket has been grown under the higher standards in force in the UK or has come from somewhere else with lower standards.
I am delighted to hear that the Scilly flower industry is doing well. Flowers are a huge growth industry at outlets, increasing by more than 30 per cent. per annum, but UK grower participation is stagnant, if not declining, because of the different levels of VAT in Europe. I believe that 11 member states have substantially lower VAT rates on flowers, making it hard for our producers to compete. The high-tech flower growers in my part of the world have margins of less than 2 per cent. They will not be investing any further capital. We have also heard about clear cases of planning getting in the way of productivity.
After spending two days with those in our industry, I wrote to Lord Donoughue, the Minister with responsibility for horticulture, setting out my points in greater detail. I was disappointed that my request for a meeting has not been granted and there is no apparent intention to do so. I should like to conclude cheekily by suggesting that if the noble Lord thinks that the issue will not be his responsibility for much longer, he should get a move on. If he thinks that he is going to stay at the Ministry, he should realise that the industry needs a Minister who will listen to it and understand its problems. This is not a party issue.

Mr. John Hayes: I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for securing it.
My constituency is richly horticultural. It can justly claim to be the food production centre of the UK, although other hon. Members might contest that—I see one or two waving their heads about—and claim an equal share to that title.
As well as food, my area produces a large number of bulbs and cut flowers. Many people are familiar with the Spalding flower parade and festival. The skills, enterprise, energy and initiative that contribute to that advertisement for my constituency are also prevalent in the horticultural enterprise there. A great deal of innovative and imaginative work is going on in the cut flower and bulb industries, from both glasshouse and outdoor producers.
Against that background, I should like to raise three points in the few minutes at my disposal. The first concerns research and development, which has already been mentioned. I am sure that all hon. Members share my welcome for the Government's commitment to the Horticultural Research Institute at Kirton. However, I have two questions for the Minister. How does that £1.7 million investment compare with our principal competitors; and will the project be extended when it reaches the end of its life? We are in the fourth year of a five-year programme. What plans are there to extend the project or replace it with something similar?
My second point is on marketing. We have heard a lot about the need for collaborative marketing, which I endorse. Although the UK is the home of gardening, the industry is sometimes seen as small scale and peripheral compared with those in Holland and other countries, so it requires Government support. I think that the industry would acknowledge that the HDC is doing an excellent job, even though levy-based organisations are never particularly popular. However, we need marketing funds and programmes to allow our industry to take advantage of some of the export opportunities in Europe and elsewhere. The HDC should be given a boost by Government support.
My third point is about competition. Part of the problem is that many of our competitor countries enjoy more indulgent fiscal regimes. Payment terms are more generous and it is easier for their industries to start up, to survive and to export. Spanish producers of apples, strawberries and cauliflowers are nibbling away at the edge of our market because of their climatic advantage and putting our producers under enormous pressure.
Some say that the answer is to opt for niche market specialism, but that makes producers more fragile. Relying on a targeted niche market means that a producer cannot go in and out of a product according to economic circumstances. The ability to switch products year by year has always given growers and farmers financial and economic insulation. The focus, targeting and capital investment that niche market production necessitates removes that.
Finally, on the subject of retailers, I can say little that has not been said already, but I want to amplify some of the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Surely it is wrong that the profit margin of a typical retailer, for example, a supermarket, in the ornamental cut flower market can be between 25 and 30 per cent. when the pre-packer and the grower are making between 2 and 5 per cent. profit—a generous estimate in many cases. It is nonsensical that contracts setting retail prices cover periods of between six months and 18 months, regardless of any changes in cost prices; and that the consumer therefore pays the same price, regardless of the plight of the producer.
That matter requires Government attention. Discussions taking place with the British Retail Consortium must establish not only binding agreements but proper systems for auditing and monitoring commitments made by the BRC's members in respect of procurement and labelling of British products. I hope to hear a commitment on that from the Minister today.

Mr. James Paice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on having obtained this debate—I cannot remember when we last had a debate solely on horticulture. The industry is a large one, running from field-scale vegetables and salad crops—for example, hundreds of acres of celery, lettuce and other salad crops are grown in my constituency—to ornamentals and nursery stock. There are many issues that affect the industry; some are unique to individual sectors, whereas others are more general.
Let us examine the overall health of the industry. As my hon. Friend said, it operates mainly in the free market. It receives little or no support from the British Government or from any other European Government, although the European aid for marketing schemes for producer groups is welcome and I am glad that the take-up rate has been high. This week's edition of "Horticulture Week" reports that the findings of the latest Plimsoll portfolio analysis of horticulture show that 27 per cent. of companies failed to make any profit in 1997; and that an examination of accounts from slightly more than 2,000 horticultural companies shows that 591 companies have above-average borrowings and three quarters of the latter are in financial difficulties. The overall picture of the horticulture sector is not entirely one of blooming roses, although some sectors have done better than others.
Horticulture is important to the British economy and to trade—the figures have already been quoted, so I need not repeat them—but some sectors have now been contracting for several years. That contraction is most severe in the top-fruit sector: apple output has declined by almost one third over the past 20 years, and the area covered by apple orchards has almost halved. Apples were once grown extensively in my constituency, but there are now only a few vestiges left of the old orchards. This country is now only 36 per cent. self-sufficient in apples. Tomato output is fairly stable, but our self-sufficiency is now only 28 per cent. and continues to decline, despite huge investment in new glasshouses, such as the one opened last summer by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), which is the largest in the United Kingdom. We have to look for ways both to arrest the decline in those sectors and to help other sectors to thrive.
Yesterday, the National Farmers Union ran its "proud to serve British" reception in the Members' Dining Room of the House of Commons. At that event, Lord Donoughue, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, lauded British produce, which was welcome; however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, the Minister's record on supporting horticulture on other occasions is lamentable. An article in the journal "Fresh Produce" dated 16 October 1998 starts:
Probably the least surprising feature of next week's Marden Fruit Show is that horticulture minister Lord Donoughue will not be attending.
It notes that the Minister
has consistently dodged trade events…since he took up office.
That does not smack of great support from the Minister with responsibility for the industry.
Our fair deal for farming campaign applies equally to horticulture. Imported fruit and vegetables should be produced to the standards required here: no produce should be imported into this country for British consumers if it has been treated with chemicals that are banned in this country. I hope that the Government will take action to ensure that that happens.
That brings me to the subject of the pesticides tax. We realise that that proposal is driven by the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but I hope that the Minister will tell us what MAFF's attitude is. In Whitehall, is the Ministry standing up for farmers and growers? Is it being made clear to the Treasury that no farmer or grower uses expensive pesticides unnecessarily; and that a tax will not reduce pesticide usage, but will merely raise growers' costs? It should also be borne in mind that consumers might not want the misshapen or slightly less attractive produce that may result if the use of pesticides is reduced or abandoned.
The main issue mentioned by almost every speaker today is the impact of the minimum wage and the working time directive, especially in respect of casual workers, who are extremely important to the horticulture industry. Such workers have been recognised by the Agricultural Wages Board for many years. They are engaged to work by the hour or by the day; there is no continuity of work guaranteed; and they are paid by the day, often through

piecework rates. Only if they are employed continuously for 20 weeks do they become classified as being in regular employment.
Such workers are drawn from sections of the population who actually want to work in that way. Many of them are itinerant people: in my area, travellers coming to pick crops in the right season are part of our history. However, there is a particular group, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), of workers who operate under the terms of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. They are foreign students, mainly from central and eastern Europe, who come to this country with Home Office consent under a scheme that is registered by the Home Office as a youth mobility and cultural exchange scheme. Ten thousand such students come each year and many employers, including some in my constituency, employ tens or even hundreds of them, often providing accommodation for them as well. Without those workers, lettuces would not be cut and fruit would not be picked.
The simple fact is that those students want to work. They are motivated by a good work ethic and by sums of money that they could never dream of earning at home. The money they can earn in one summer here can set them up for life, enabling them to buy a house in their home country. It has been impossible to obtain British workers for those jobs, despite sterling efforts by the Employment Service, which I encouraged when I was a Minister in the Department of Employment.
That scheme is now under threat: the AWB proposes that, after 13 weeks, such workers should cease to be classified as casual and the working time regulations and the minimum wage be brought to bear. Let me quote from a briefing kindly given to me by Boxford Suffolk Farms Ltd., which is a large producer of top-fruit used for Copella apple juice. In 1998, it employed more than 1,500 people under the scheme to help with the harvest. The company states:
The present procedure is for the worker to sign the Daily Work Sheet on the field at the beginning of the day, but they are then free to work the hours that they want, when they want and for however long they want. If they feel like walking away and not returning then they are free to do so… This is how the majority of the casual workers like it, it gives them flexibility.
However, if we are now to pay holiday pay then this will have to be carefully monitored thus adding cost and administrative burden to the operation. If, indeed, it is possible to police at all.
The company also sent me a costing, although the House will be relieved to hear that I shall not go into the details, because I must allow time for the Minister to respond to the debate. Based on the 1998 statistics, the company has worked out that there would be an overall increase in the per head cost of employing such students of 34.5 per cent. No business can afford that, so the proposed changes jeopardise the industry's ability to get the crops harvested.
Several issues have been raised in the debate about this important industry, of which casual work and the Agricultural Wages Board are by far the most urgent, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what MAFF is doing to address those questions. I know that he will stress the independence of the wages board, but we want to know whether MAFF is making representations on behalf of growers to ensure that, in its review of casual workers, the board understands the horticulture industry's need to have ready access to such people.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): This has been an interesting and a pleasant debate in which hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken about an industry that makes a great contribution to British food supplies. I suspect that many of us have been associated with the industry at some time. Although I did not make enough money to buy a house, when I was about 19 and an industrial engineering apprentice in central Birmingham, I spent a fortnight's holiday fruit picking in Scotland. It was a totally different life. So, although I was not treated as a foreigner, I am familiar with the joys and the difficulties of fruit picking.
It is clearly impossible for me to respond to many of the points raised in the debate, so I shall pick and choose. I promise to write to hon. Members regarding any points of substance that I do not cover. I had hoped to respond more positively to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who mentioned Brogdale, as I was fairly convinced that I would be able to announce a decision. However, although one sees the papers and agrees the decision, such matters take a while to progress through the Ministry. We must protect public funds and MAFF must obtain a planning gain. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be done positively, and we hope to make an announcement as quickly as possible.
I shall not repeat the points raised by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) in introducing this subject. I congratulate him on obtaining this debate about a very important industry that is worth almost £2 billion at farm gate level. Every hon. Member who has spoken has extolled the virtues of the industry and its excellent, wholesome and diverse produce. Although the Government do not tell people what to eat, we urge them to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables—and preferably those grown in Britain. I suspect that the common market policemen will criticise me for that remark.
I congratulate the National Farmers Union and retailers on initiating the assured produce scheme, in which 70 per cent. of British producers and retailers participate. MAFF is not involved in the scheme as the Government do not necessarily play a part in those sorts of relationships. It is as plain as a pikestaff that home-grown British fruit and vegetables are fresher than imports. However, hon. Members referred to national cycles as a result of supermarket distribution throughout the country and we know that people want to buy exotic fruits and vegetables that we cannot grow in Britain.
There is dynamism in the industry and we applaud grower ingenuity. We are world leaders in horticulture and are responsible for much ground-breaking technology. Tasty small British strawberries can be grown almost the whole year round as a result of research and development that is funded by MAFF and the industry. People soon realise that the big imported strawberries do not have a taste—I just wish that they would do so sooner.
I reject the attacks upon my noble Friend Lord Donoughue. It is nonsense to claim that he does not speak in support of British produce when he did so just the other day. My noble Friend certainly gets around the country. It may surprise Opposition Members to learn that, because the Labour party has more trouble winning votes in the other place, the whipping regime in the House of Lords

is much more severe than in this place. Despite that, however, my noble Friend is doing a good job on behalf of the industry.
I do not deal with horticultural issues on a daily basis, but I was astonished to learn last November that I was the first serving MAFF Minister to visit Spitalfields market since its relocation to Waltham Forest in 1991. It is a major market which distributes both imported and home-grown produce throughout the country. It has a turnover of £400 million a year and is a major distributor of food to the catering industry—a particular growth area to which many hon. Members referred.
I hope that I have applauded the assured produce scheme sufficiently. Although some hon. Members have mentioned the minimum wage's impact on the industry, more hon. Members have referred to the possibility of a pesticide tax. That is a very important issue. Page 13 of last week's edition of Farming Weekly carries a story about my right hon. Friend's address to the Soil Association conference. It states:
The Minister also told delegates that pesticide taxes were not the best way to protect the environment from pollution. Such taxes would merely increase the cost of pesticides.
Between 1986 and 1996, the tonnage of pesticides used in this country was reduced by 15 per cent. We have a ruthless regime for the control, monitoring and surveillance of pesticide use in Britain. The working party on pesticides—which is somewhat more than a working party; it is not a casual ad hoc arrangement—took 1,000 samples of fruit and vegetables from around the country, imports and exports, to check the level of pesticides. The quantities vary each year. It conducted tens of thousands of tests on the produce, checking for pesticide residue. It found no residue in 70 per cent. of the samples and detected minimal residue levels in about 30 per cent. Its discovery that less than 1 per cent. of samples contained residue above the minimum level resulted from its targeting of particularly dodgy areas. However, all samples were well within safety limits.
The Government recognise concern about the impact of a tax, especially on the economic competitiveness of the agriculture industry. I shall share with the House the contents of a paper from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service which recently came across my desk—and which will no doubt be published in due course—outlining a qualitative assessment of the impact of a pesticide tax. It said that pesticide taxation will not necessarily reduce pesticide usage or offer environmental benefits. With more focus on cost, farmers will use the older, cheaper and often less environmentally friendly products, and there might be an increase in the use of less well evaluated pesticide mixtures.
According to the paper, the repeated use of a narrow range of cheaper products would increase the risk of pesticide resistance. Pesticide taxation would stimulate greater demand for research into application techniques. Nitrate leaching would increase and farmers might adopt weed control strategies that are more dependent on cultural methods, many of which are more damaging to wildlife than herbicide use.
The introduction of a pesticide tax may reduce sea bed quality, and spillages and exposure to treated seeds will lead to increased potential damage to wildlife, including farmland birds. A pesticide tax would increase the amount of pesticides imported for own use and, as a consequence,


larger quantities of pesticides would be stored on farms, possibly in sub-standard conditions. Reduced profitability would decrease the amount of investment in new machinery, which would be beneficial to the operating environment.
I make no apology for relating a one-sided view of the argument. I make it absolutely clear that MAFF Ministers are fully seized of the upside and the downside of a pesticide tax. It may sound superficially attractive as a way of reducing pesticide use, but, perversely, it may have the opposite effect. Such a tax may lead to the use of not only more, but more damaging, pesticides. We are not prepared to tolerate that threat to the safety of the food chain.
In the minute remaining, I shall turn to research and development. We spend what might be alleged to be a disproportionate amount of MAFF's research and development budget on horticulture, and we make no apologies for that. By and large, the industry receives no support from common market subsidies. We are therefore very pleased to contribute between £11 million and £17 million—depending on whether we add in the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council money—and we hope to continue that funding.
I regret the changes that we were forced to make to educational grants, but that is a matter for the Department for Education and Employment to address, given the constraints of the comprehensive spending review. I regret also that I have not been able to respond to all the points raised in the debate.

Road Deaths (Sentencing)

Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise an important issue that attracts widespread concern from Members in all parties. I intend to speak for 10 minutes at most, to enable colleagues to contribute to the debate before the Minister has an opportunity to respond.
On 12 January 1998, a 16-year-old constituent of mine, Livia Galli-Atkinson, left home at five to seven in the evening to walk the 800 yards to attend her regular ballet class at the Boden Studios in Enfield. On Windmill hill, Livia was hit by a Mercedes car that mounted the pavement, struck a signpost and injured another woman pedestrian. Half an hour later, Livia died.
Last March, Livia's mother wrote in The Sunday Times of her and her family's feelings. She said:
Our petite 16-year-old daughter was lying on a pavement…with a broken pelvis, a bleeding face, torn little ears and a gashed underlip, her front teeth smashed as a result of the car's bottom scraping against her face. She died of severe head injuries in the arms of strangers, while her supper was being made at home.
Livia's parents, Giulietta and George, and her sister Bianca have shown great dignity, courage and determination during the past 12 months. Their cause has captured the imagination of the people of Enfield and beyond. In November 1998, the driver of the Mercedes was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. His sentence consisted of a £2,000 fine and a five-year driving ban.
Today's short debate focuses on the sentences given in such cases. I draw the attention of the House to the cross-party early-day motion 201. The motion contrasts the average penalty of 33.7 months in cases of causing death by dangerous driving with the average penalty of 62 months in manslaughter cases.
Many important issues are raised by my constituents' case. Many of them are matters for the Home Office and others are the concern of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Today, I want to concentrate on sentencing.
Road Peace is the national charity which campaigns for justice for those who have lost their lives in road cases and for their bereaved families. Road Peace has launched the campaign for justice for road traffic victims and has been instrumental in forming an all-party parliamentary group on that subject. Its concern, and mine, is that the pattern of sentencing across the country is too lenient.
The number of prosecutions following road deaths has fallen since the implementation of the Road Traffic Act 1991. In 1996, the last year for which I have figures, 3,598 people were killed on the roads. In 382 of those cases, someone was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, and 245 of those people were convicted.
It is clear from my research that the Crown Prosecution Service demonstrates a marked reluctance even to use the charge of causing death by dangerous driving. Incredibly, for cases involving the lesser charge—driving without due care and attention—no statistics are kept for the number of drivers who kill or cause serious injury. That is unacceptable. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for


Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), to consider whether we can provide statistics that make that distinction, so that we know of cases involving death or serious injury. I ask also that the Government consider publishing those statistics more frequently.
The maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 10 years' imprisonment and a mandatory disqualification from driving, yet sentences tend to be considerably more lenient. Very few convictions carry a sentence of more than two years in prison, let alone anything close to 10 years. In one in three cases, including the case of Livia, the driver is not disqualified, despite the existence of that provision. That pattern of leniency brings the legal system into grave disrepute and undermines public confidence in the courts. How can we expect drivers to take those issues seriously if the courts and the law appear not to do so?
I support the long-standing recommendation of the North committee that the courts should have the power to take account of the consequences of a road traffic offence when sentencing. Indeed, I would go further and say that we should require the courts to do so. It is incredible that the courts ignore death when it is a consequence in such cases.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister inform the House what progress has been made in reviewing the Road Traffic Act 1988? That issue was raised in an Adjournment debate last May by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). I am aware that these matters are dealt with by the DETR but clearly they have great significance for today's debate. In last May's debate, my hon. Friend said that
a car is not merely a personal convenience, but a lethal weapon."—[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 341.]
In that context, surely it is not only drivers' responsibility to drive carefully but the law's responsibility to provide suitable deterrents to prevent the tragic loss of life that I have described today.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a possible method for dealing with these important issues. The Act established a sentencing advisory panel, which will be empowered to issue guidelines to the courts with the aim of promoting consistency of good practice across the country.
Will the Minister today at least consider referring the matter of road deaths to the sentencing advisory panel? If he is able to do so, today or shortly, will he urge the panel to consult widely in reviewing the sentencing guidelines in cases of road death and, in particular, to consult the bereaved families and friends and reputable organisations working in the field, most notably Road Peace? In referring the matter to the panel, the Government would send a powerful signal that the Home Office is listening to public concerns expressed in the House and is ready to act on them.
Giulietta, George and Bianca Galli-Atkinson are here today listening to the debate. Earlier, I joined them and colleagues from other parties to deliver a letter and petition to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Downing street. It is now one year and one hour since Livia Galli-Atkinson was buried. Today's debate is dedicated to her memory and the memory of the thousands of others who have lost their lives and their bereaved families. I hope that it will provide an opportunity for the House to send a clear, powerful

message to the courts that leniency in road death cases is unacceptable and the time is right for clear, tough sentencing guidelines. None of that will bring Livia back, but I hope that it will mean that she did not die in vain.

Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing this important debate, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye.
I, too, have a sad case to relate. It is one of many of which I have now become aware. On 10 June 1997, David Burrows, a 15-year-old, was walking home when he was struck by a speeding car and killed instantly. It happened a very short distance from where I live. His father Keith has been working tirelessly—just as we heard from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate that the parents of the victim in his constituency did—and in December I also delivered a large petition signed by people, not only in my constituency, but from a wider area.
The driver convicted of David's death, who was found to have caused death by dangerous driving, did not receive any form of custodial sentence. In the view of the people who signed the petition, it was a derisory sentence, and this is just one of thousands of similar cases. I suggest that it is time for the courts to send a clear message that causing death by dangerous driving is a very serious offence, and sentences must reflect that.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on raising this subject. I have been a patron of the charity Road Peace for several years, and I am pleased to have been asked to chair the all-party group campaigning for justice for road traffic victims and their families.
Some years ago, I gave evidence to the Law Commission for a study that resulted in the report entitled, "Involuntary Manslaughter". I believe that, alongside the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, that report may provide a course of action for the Home Office to consider. The proposal is that there ought to be a new crime that has an application beyond road traffic cases and which encompasses the concept of involuntary manslaughter. Motor manslaughter differs from any other killing in that intent is not the issue.
Clearly, there is no intent in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), but society takes the view, as does anyone who has been involved in such cases, that we can no longer accept the courts dealing with these matters so leniently. Road Peace is considering a number of issues which we will raise with the Minister. They range from road design to difficult ethical matters and savings that can accrue to the Treasury, but the suggestion that I outlined could send a powerful signal to all motorists that we need to consider our actions much more carefully.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing this debate. I am glad to support everything that he said.
I was made aware of the issue because Cissie Atkinson, Livia Galli-Atkinson' s grandmother, lives in my constituency and has written to me. Her letters are poignant and the hurt is very apparent, but the sense of injustice that she expresses is overwhelming. It is extraordinary that someone who, even in a fit of carelessness, does something that leads to someone else's death should not be expected to face a custodial sentence, unless there are significant mitigating factors. The presumption should be that the courts must understand that. I am advised that all those involved in the case, certainly on the prosecution side, were absolutely sure that a custodial sentence would be passed down and were correspondingly astonished when that did not happen. I am sure that the Minister will understand that the public disquiet about this has to be dealt with.
Picking up on a point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), we are talking about a change in our culture. Most of us drive. We know that we could be careless and that our carelessness could have consequences similar to those described today. However, if we knew that our carelessness was likely to lead to a custodial sentence, it would have a definite effect on the basic level of courtesy on our roads and on the standard of driving, which needs to be raised. People would be made to understand that causing the loss of a life is something for which there is a heavy penalty. There can be no sense of justice if the courts do not apply that principle.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Sadly, I am sure that many of us—some would say too many of us—are aware of cases in our constituencies in which bad driving has resulted in deaths on the road. Those of us who have not been bereaved in this way can only begin to imagine the effect that it must have on the families of those who have. How the criminal law is able to contribute to our response to this terrible state of affairs is clearly a matter of great concern, and I value the opportunity to debate it this afternoon.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) for raising this subject. I undertake to reflect on what he said, and, if appropriate, I shall write to him about the points that I do not manage to cover in my response. He will appreciate that there is not a great deal of time to deal with them all now. I also thank other hon. Members for their brief but nevertheless important contributions, which arise out of the experience of their constituents or those related to their constituents, as in the case of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
I was certainly very sorry to hear and read about the tragic circumstances of the death of Miss Galli-Atkinson. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has already written to the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), but I take this opportunity to pass on my condolences to the family. I understand that they must have been devastated by what happened. This is particularly close to home for me since there was a similar case, although not exactly the same set of circumstances, in my constituency some years ago. I understand that, at the end of the process, the families of those who have been killed in this way often feel somehow cheated.
There are a number of general points to make before I get into the detail of this aspect of the law. It is necessary to recognise that the question of how those who cause death on the roads are dealt with involves difficult and complex issues of charging and sentencing. At the same time, I can well understand the deep anger and frustration that relatives often feel when they have lost a loved one, especially when they believe that the person responsible has not been adequately punished.
No one can dispute the seriousness of the consequences when death is the result of a crash on the roads. There should be no doubt that the criminal law must address the extent of the offender's culpability. Of course, it is the responsibility of the Government to make available to the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the courts offences appropriate to the degree of culpability of the driver in the circumstances in question. The difficulty in some cases is that the offender might, in law, have acted carelessly rather than intentionally, although the consequences of his act are disproportionately serious. When this happens, it is both likely and understandable that families will feel aggrieved at the outcome of the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate asked for some statistics on manslaughter and what happens in such cases. I shall provide what statistics we have, but it would take too long to plough through them now. I certainly undertake to review them to see whether we can learn anything more by examining or collecting them differently.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am fully conscious of the fact that, unfortunately, I did not attend the first few minutes of the presentation of the case by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). The distinction between careless and dangerous—a higher level of culpability—should surely be determined by the courts. One of the grossest injustices that arises in these cases surely stems from the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service and the police tend to deal out plea bargaining ahead of the hearing. As a result, the court is very frequently not allowed to distinguish between the two levels of culpability, which leads to the greatest frustration in the bereaved families.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. A further point along the road makes the matter even more complex. Juries were often unwilling to convict motorists for the offence of manslaughter. Cause of death offences in road traffic cases were therefore introduced in the hope that they would provide an alternative to juries. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the situation is very complex.
The current framework of law in this area is broadly based on the views of the North committee, which reported on the issue in 1988. The report addressed in great depth the concern that the law relating to road traffic accidents had not developed satisfactorily. Detailed consideration was given to the possibility of creating a new offence of causing death by careless driving. However, the report concluded that it would be wrong to impose severe penalties for unforeseen tragic consequences if the driver's actions were careless. That view has been accepted for the past 10 years by the previous Government and, for the time being, this Government. Accordingly, where driving resulting in a


death is considered to be careless, there is no causing-death offence, except where the driver was driving under the influence of drink or drugs. It is, however, an offence to cause death by dangerous driving.
We recognise the strength of opinion of many that an offence of causing death by careless driving in the absence of consumption of drink or drugs is necessary. We take those views seriously, and I assure hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that the Government will continue to consider whether such a new offence should be introduced. However, we see the strength of the arguments in the North report, and are not currently persuaded of the need to introduce such a measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate will be aware that my colleague in the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, has agreed to keep the issue under review. That remains the position.
Having dealt with the offences, I turn to the question of charging. It is the role of the prosecution to decide at the beginning of the process how it is to view a case. It must look at the evidence and make the difficult decision whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant is guilty of a particular offence. The CPS, which takes the decisions, is independent of the Government, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on or to interfere in its individual decisions on which charges to bring in a particular case. That is well understood in the House.
The Government believe that road traffic law should provide a framework for safe driving, lay down clear standards for driver behaviour and deter drivers from breaching those standards. We have no desire to be complacent about that. As part of the Government's commitment to that aim, the Transport Research Laboratory is carrying out research on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions into the way in which bad driving cases proceed through the criminal justice system. The intention is to obtain evidence on whether there is sufficiently clear guidance on the law and its purpose, and how that affects the choice of penalty. Researchers are looking in detail at the decisions taken by the police, the CPS and the courts. We expect to have results by the end of next year. At that point—hopefully—we should be in a better position to judge whether any changes in this area of the law and the way in which it operates are necessary.
I should say a little more about the vexed question of sentencing. Another of the Government's responsibilities is to ensure that the courts have the powers to decide on the appropriate sentence in each case before them. As the House would rightly expect, we take that very seriously.
As every hon. Member who has participated in this debate is aware, there is a graduated scale of penalties for road traffic offences. Careless driving carries a maximum fine of £2,500 and an obligatory endorsement of the offender's driving licence. Driving while disqualified and drink driving both carry maximum penalties of six months imprisonment, a £5,000 fine and an obligatory

disqualification from driving. The maximum penalty for dangerous driving is two years imprisonment, and for causing death by dangerous driving or causing death while under the influence of drink or drugs, the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. That framework rightly gives the courts the power to impose severe penalties on those who commit the most serious driving offences.
The Government are well aware that unduly lenient sentencing undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. There are times when it seems that the courts have not made full use of the powers available to them. To help to deal with that problem, the Attorney-General has an important power to refer cases of indictable offence, such as causing death by dangerous driving, to the Court of Appeal, where it appears that the sentence was unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal has the power to increase that sentence, but it must be exercised within 28 days of the previous sentence. It is worth noting that the Court of Appeal can impose a heavier sentence only if it finds the sentence imposed unduly lenient.
We are also keen to do what we can to promote the important principle of consistency in sentencing. To this end, provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act1998—due to come into effect in July—will place a new statutory duty on the Court of Appeal to consider, whenever it receives an appeal against sentence, whether it should frame a new sentencing guideline or revise an existing one. The provisions set out in detail the principles that guidelines must take into account.
The provisions also establish a sentencing advisory panel, to which reference has been made, to provide advice on such guidelines to the Court of Appeal. The panel will provide the court with statistical information about sentencing, and consult a wide range of interested parties, including victims' groups, which I accept is important. It will act in three sets of circumstances: when advised by the Court of Appeal that it intends to frame a guideline, at its own instigation, and when the Home Secretary directs it to provide views to the court. We hope and believe that those provisions will lead to more comprehensive sentencing guidelines, ensuring greater consistency in sentencing. The offence of causing death by dangerous driving could be one of the offences considered in that way.
I have very listened carefully to the debate. I assure the House that I shall continue to work with colleagues in other Departments to ensure that we get it right in tackling these serious and important issues. I put it on record again that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and others who have taken part in the debate for drawing the Government's attention to these issues and for providing the opportunity to debate them. We take seriously the concerns and the specific case highlighted. We shall keep the matter under review and, in due course, try to find a way through the sets of concerns, which I know are real and very harrowing for the families involved. This debate has been a very useful contribution to that process.

Health Services Accreditation

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the Chamber the subject of the disposal of Health Services Accreditation. I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. It probably is not the first time that he has been there since his appointment, but it is the first time that I have had the opportunity to address him there.
It saddens me that I have had to bring this issue into the Chamber today. My primary concern is that the work and knowledge of the effective development of standards in the national health service is not lost, but continues. HSA recently published its service standards for the care of elderly people, and there are continual demands from customers for new work in mental health, children's services, sexual health, housekeeping and catering—and, of course, in primary care.
HSA's system for the development of standards seems to me to be the most effective yet, because the standards are developed by users and are agreed on and implemented by users—hence they are owned by the people who use them. They are not imposed from above. Currently, some 50 health trusts throughout the United Kingdom are contracted to HSA, and more than 90 departments are in the process of implementing HSA's work.
My involvement began when I was Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye. I am pleased to see my successor, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), in the Chamber, as I know that he has taken an interest in HSA. When I represented that constituency, I was invited to a presentation of certificates at the Conquest hospital in Hastings, which was one of the pilot sites. I was so impressed by what I learnt then that I visited HSA, based at Battle, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). As a result, I agreed to introduce HSA to the wider audience of Westminster—which I did when I, with the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), who continues to take an interest in HSA, sponsored a function in the House before the general election, attended by the then Ministers and shadow Ministers, including the Secretaries of State.
When I lost the seat at the general election, I returned to my previous day job and began to build up a lobbying business again. HSA asked me to advise it, which I was pleased to do, as I believed in its work. As soon as I was selected to stand for Beckenham, I cancelled all contracts, but my interest in HSA has continued.
I knew that HSA's future was uncertain because of the terms on which it had been handed over from the region. Indeed, the consortium of health authorities should have solved the problem of its home by March 1997, but agreed to continue funding until March 1998. I am told by Andrew Corbett-Nolan, who was HSA's director, that at a meeting with Sir Alan Langlands of the NHS Executive in autumn 1997, it was agreed that efforts should be made to retain HSA in the NHS. Shortly after that, East Sussex health authority, as the lead authority, extended the disposal time for HSA until September 1998.
In January 1998, the chief executive of East Sussex health authority, accompanied by the director of public health, told the HSA director at a meeting that, because

of worries about overspending, HSA would be closed down at the end of March 1998 unless the director could make arrangements for it to be found a home elsewhere. I believe that, at that time, there was no discussion about invoking the formal disposal procedure governed by health service guidance (94)54, to which I shall refer.
The director went to the King's Fund, and it agreed to take HSA. The chief executive of East Sussex health authority welcomed that in a letter, but said that he had now to invoke the disposal procedure. I understand that there was then correspondence between the fund and East Sussex. I am told that on 5 March—at a meeting between the HSA director, the assistant director of finance of East Sussex health authority and the director of operations of the King's Fund—the assistant director of finance guided the King's Fund as to the terms of its offer.
By 27 April, East Sussex health authority had made no progress on the disposal procedure. The King's Fund offered the director of HSA the job of director of development of Health Quality Service—an organisation in association with the King's Fund—and he accepted that offer. He resigned from HSA that evening and began at the fund on 18 May.
To the outside world a possible conflict of interest now existed, as was also possible for the chairman of the advisory board of HSA, who had joined the board of Health Quality Service the previous autumn, in 1997. HQS was launched on 3 June 1998. Its mission is to
signal to the health sector throughout the UK that we"—
HQS—
are the premier quality assurance and quality improvement programme",
and
to develop new standards of outcome measurement for patient satisfaction, staff motivation, clinical effectiveness, service efficiency and service access.
The situation is as follows. One organisation has now been encouraged to bid for an NHS operation. Two people closely associated with that operation—so closely associated that they knew all the operating financial details, which were presented to the advisory board of HSA at each meeting—are now involved in the bidding organisation. I accept their word that they were never involved in the bid, but, should that situation have occurred in the private sector, some searching questions would probably have been asked at that stage.
Meanwhile, on 14 May, East Sussex had invited expressions of interest in HSA by an advertisement in the Health Service Journal, but not in the European Journal. Customers were alerted, by letter, to the disposal.
At the launch of HQS on 3 June, Baroness Jay, who was then a Health Minister, Yvonne Moors—the chief nurse—and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, better known as Philip Hunt of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, all welcomed the amalgamation of HSA with HQS and hospital accreditation. Several people in the audience have separately told me of their surprise at those statements, bearing in mind the fact that we were only at the stage where bidders were being invited to talk to East Sussex health authority.
I understand that, in July, ESHA held its meeting to consider the bids that it had received. The guidance (94)54, with its annexe B by Price Waterhouse on the disposal process, recommends the establishment of a


project team. The East Sussex team consisted of the chief executive, the director of finance and the director of public health. At paragraph 9, the Price Waterhouse document recommends that
customers should be consulted about the composition and objectives of the project team. It is also important to ensure that staff on the trading body to be disposed of are fully consulted. The precise choice of who serves on the project team should strike a balance between including those with experience of the service under review and avoiding possible conflicts of interest.
I am not aware of any consultation with customers except for the letter to customers, and I am told that there has been no consultation with staff that they would regard as meaningful. Indeed, some would go so far as to say that there has been no consultation.
When I put those two points to the chief executive of East Sussex health authority, he told me that the team had taken a deliberate decision to involve neither. The team felt that customers would leave HSA, and that the staff would leak to their ex-director—a recognition, I infer, that conflicts of interest existed.
I make no judgment, other than to say that the decision flies in the face of guidance from people expert in the disposal of companies, who were sufficiently highly regarded by the NHS to be invited to write the detailed annexe. That document says that the project team needs to develop detailed requirements for bidders, and, at paragraph 52, says that the
findings will need to be agreed with all of the stakeholders, i.e. all those who will have the service provided for them. Care must be taken to identify all such stakeholders since there may well be 'passive' customers who are benefiting from a service at present and whose requirements will need to be included in the formal contract.
In the summer, staff were also told by East Sussex health authority that they could not mount a management buy-out.
Negotiations with potential bidders continued during summer 1998, and at the end of August the director of finance of the ESHA issued the invitation to tender, with a return date of 22 September. Paragraph 55 of the Price Waterhouse annexe says:
Together with the service specification, the tender and contract documentation need to form the basis of a legally binding contract.
By 10 October, a very acceptable offer had been made to East Sussex health authority. I understand that the tenderer signed a confidentiality agreement to carry out due diligence, but I am told that it did not sign a legally binding contract. Staff tell me that they received no information about the winning bidder, and had to find out about the company from its website. I am not naming names because the company has now withdrawn.
However, when a company representative went to HSA to meet the staff, it was not to discuss the due diligence subjects of finance and legal obligations, but to find out about the services provided by HSA—a subject about which anyone would reasonably have thought that the company already knew, having made what should have been a legally binding offer, subject only to due diligence.
At a further meeting, a partner or client company of the official bidder also visited HSA premises. Staff report that this second team had no clear knowledge either of the organisation or the product that it was buying. Somewhat unsurprisingly, on Christmas eve the offer was withdrawn. I understand that the ESHA is now trying to resurrect the interest of the other two bidders who had submitted tenders. However, if none is forthcoming, HSA faces closure at the end of March.
I am sure that those who have taken part in the tortuous process that I have outlined have acted with the highest possible motives. I may disagree with the attitude of the East Sussex health authority towards consultation with customers and staff; that is a matter of judgment, but it seems sensible to have those two important groups on board when efforts are being made to dispose of an organisation in which they have a direct and clear interest.
I have deliberately kept my comments to a bare outline. However, while the process was continuing I raised my concerns with Ministers by parliamentary questions, both written and oral. Most recently, I wrote to the previous Minister of State. I sent copies of that letter to the head of the National Health Service Executive, Sir Alan Langlands, the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the chief executive of the East Sussex health authority. Other than brief acknowledgements I have received no replies.
If any hon. Member had shown the slightest interest in even the smallest frog in the NHS pool, I would have expected that to cause someone somewhere to instigate full inquiries encompassing all the players in the small drama that is the subject of the debate. My concern remains to save the work that has been done, is being done and requires to be done. We all wish there to be higher standards in the NHS.
I hope that a home can be found for the work that has been done. HSA standards fall neatly into the role of clinical excellence and the development of assurance within the NHS. The voluntary work done by so many throughout the NHS, including senior consultants from many different hospitals, the people they treat throughout the country and the staff who are involved, including porters, ambulance men, nurses, administrators and managers, should not be thrown away. I include anyone who has even in the slightest been affected by the work that has been going on and the work that has been studied. The involvement of all those concerned should not be devalued.
I urge the Minister to seek a solution that would allow everyone who uses our health service to benefit from the assurance that the work of HSA to raise standards will continue in one form or another.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on having secured the debate. I am grateful to her for her kind remarks at the beginning of her speech. I know that this is an area in which she has continued to take a great interest since she became the Member for Beckenham. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), who has written on several occasions on the future of Health Services Accreditation, which is located, as the hon. Lady has recognised, in his constituency.
I shall take, first, the national picture. Quality in the NHS is a subject which the Government take extremely seriously. Quality improvement is a central plank of the programme for modernising the NHS. That was set out in the White Paper "The New NHS" in December 1997. Last summer, as a follow-up to the White Paper, we published our consultation document entitled "A First Class Service: Quality in the new NHS". This document set out a three-pronged strategy to support the delivery of more


consistent and higher quality care to patients. The main elements of that strategy are as follows: first, clear national standards for services and treatments through national service frameworks and a new national institute for clinical excellence; secondly, local delivery of high-quality health care through clinical governance underpinned by modernised professional self-regulation and extended lifelong learning for health professionals; thirdly, effective monitoring of progress through a new commission for health improvement, an NHS performance assessment framework and a new national survey of patient and user experience.
We shall shortly be publishing feedback on the results of that consultation exercise, but overall the reaction of the more than 600 respondents was overwhelmingly positive. It has demonstrated strong support both for our overall aim of driving up quality standards in the NHS and for the specific proposals that we have put forward to help to achieve that.
The House will be well aware that the Queen's Speech set out the Government's intention to bring forward legislation to establish the new commission for health improvement and to create a new statutory duty of quality for NHS organisations. Regulations will also be laid shortly for the establishment of the national institute for clinical excellence as a special health authority.
The Government have sent a clear signal that we are committed to putting quality of care back at the heart of the NHS, and we are putting in place a national framework to support and monitor that process. Locally, however, it must be for NHS organisations themselves to choose which of the range of quality improvement tools that are now available—including various accreditation mechanisms—they use to help them improve their services.
I shall now take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Beckenham. The hon. Lady has recognised that I am fairly new in my present position. However, I shall ascertain whether there is outstanding correspondence from her and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and endeavour to reply to it as swiftly as possible.
Before I turn to Health Services Accreditation, I shall refer to Health Quality Service, which was mentioned by the hon. Lady. It is a new organisation which was launched last year by the King's Fund. Essentially, it offers consultancy support to health service organisations on quality improvement, quality assurance and service development, building on the work of the well-established King's Fund organisational audit process.
It appears that HSA's sponsoring health authorities feel that the impression was given at the HQS launch that HQS has absorbed HSA. There may be a misconception that HQS is a formal part of the Government's NHS quality improvement strategy, perhaps arising from press reporting of the launch, and that it has been unfairly singled out for support. That is not the case. The King's Fund and HQS are independent of the Government. In the speech that my right hon. Friend Baroness Jay made at the launch of the new organisation, she was careful to emphasise that local services must be able to explore and adopt those methods and resources that best fit their needs. As was the case with the King's Fund

organisational audit, NHS organisations that enter into arrangements with the new HQS will do so on their own initiative.
As the hon. Member for Beckenham has outlined, HSA is a ground-breaking organisation which was originally set up by the South East Thames regional health authority as a mechanism for maintaining and improving quality in the NHS. It operates by developing standards for particular services using multi-disciplinary working to help develop these standards and accreditation instruments to assess whether they have been achieved. In 1996, when regional health authorities were disbanded, local health authorities in the then South Thames region took over responsibility for HSA. The task of managing it fell to the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority, and it has invested a considerable amount of both management effort and resources to ensure HSA's continued existence.
Over time, HSA developed an income stream by selling its accreditation process to trusts and health authorities throughout the United Kingdom, but it has needed an income guarantee to ensure that it could carry out its work effectively. That was provided by local health authorities within the South Thames region.
However, with HSA's increasingly nationwide focus, the local health authorities did not consider it appropriate to continue to fund and underwrite HSA. Accordingly, with HSA's agreement, the decision was taken for its transfer out of the public sector to another, more appropriate organisation. That has, understandably, caused concern not only to hon. Members, but to those currently working for HSA and some members of the working groups who helped to develop standards.
We recognise and understand those concerns. That is why, when it was decided that the transfer was the appropriate way forward, a firm timetable was agreed and an evaluation panel was set up to ensure that there was the utmost propriety and that all interested parties received equal treatment. That reflected the guidance set out in the health services guidelines, "NHS Trading Agencies: Future Arrangements", a copy of which is available in the Library. It was also important for the panel to ensure that the NHS maximises the value of the techniques that HSA has worked to develop over the past few years—work that was undertaken voluntarily by a considerable number of clinicians and others in the NHS.
As regards consultation, I understand that the health authority wrote to all customers and contributors on 7 May last year advising them of the planned disposal, and that there was ample opportunity to respond to the health authority expressing views about HSA's disposal.

Mrs. Lait: I have seen a copy of that letter. It informed people that HSA was up for disposal—stop and end.

Mr. Denham: I shall look into that point again, but, given the time scale that evolved, people who might have been concerned about the disposal could certainly have expressed their views on the consequences of that disposal.
In line with the timetable set for the transfer, formal proposals were received and, initially, 32 organisations asked for information packs. Five organisations subsequently expressed an interest in taking over HSA. Of those, three were shortlisted and invited to tender


through a formal tendering process. All three were assessed by the panel, which considered one to be unsuitable. In accordance with standing instructions, an offer was made to the preferred bidder of the remaining two—a consortium outside the NHS—to proceed to due diligence. Sadly, during this stage, just before Christmas, the consortium withdrew its bid.
Following that withdrawal, there seem to be four options. The preferred option is to find another appropriate organisation that will take on HSA. The East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority wasted no time and, as soon as possible, entered into discussion with one of the other bidders. I understand that that organisation has written to the health authority today outlining its decision on whether to proceed, and that the health authority is considering its response. That is the current position, but it is probably appropriate to review the other options that have been suggested at various times.
The second option, which I believe was proposed by the hon. Member for Beckenham, is for the Department of Health to absorb HSA into one of the two new bodies that we are creating, the national institute for clinical excellence or the commission for health improvement. I understand why the suggestion was made, but I have strong reservations about that course. Neither NICE nor the commission are intended to be accrediting bodies, and both will need to develop their own ways of working that best fit the purposes for which they were established. I am not convinced that either could comfortably absorb HSA.
The third option, which I believe was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, is for the Department of Health to take on the role of supporting HSA. Again, I am not convinced that that would be an appropriate course. Several other players are active in providing quality assurance and improvement services to the NHS. Indeed, it is worth noting that when the South Eastern regional health authority was abolished, a consortium of local health authorities was seen as performing that function more appropriately than the Department of Health. It is to the health authorities great credit that they continued to support HSA beyond the terms of their original commitment.
The fourth and least attractive option for everyone concerned, including those working for the organisation, is for HSA in its present form to wind up. I understand those concerns. I know that the local health authority and the NHS executive will do all that they can to find an appropriate home before that happens.
I am sorry that I cannot give more reassurances today to the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend. I can, however, reassure them on a number of points. First, the Government are committed to doing all that they can to drive and support improvements in the quality of clinical care in the NHS. To that end, we are putting in place a comprehensive national package of measures. The work carried out by HSA and other organisations in the area of quality improvement provides a range of options that the NHS can use in helping to improve and assure quality.
Secondly, we do not see a conflict between our proposals for quality improvement and the continued existence of free-standing, self-financing accreditation schemes. Indeed, the renewed focus on service quality should give NHS organisations an even stronger incentive to examine ways in which they assure themselves and their patients of the standard of services provided.
Thirdly, we believe that decisions on the use of particular quality improvement tools are, in general, best taken by services themselves, drawing on the range of products available. As I stated earlier, there was little in the response to "A First Class Service" that would lead us to alter that view.
Fourthly, the hon. Lady did not make any allegations about the process, but raised concerns about it. The NHS Executive has looked into the transfer process which, in its view, is robust, with all information being shared equally. There is little scope for undue influence or conflicts of interest to arise.
I am aware that the hon. Lady has written to the Comptroller and Auditor General expressing her concerns about the transfer process, and that those concerns are being investigated. Under the National Audit Act 1983, the National Audit Office has a responsibility to ensure that public money is spent wisely and properly. One aspect is to determine whether good value for money has been achieved when public assets are sold. I can assure the hon. Lady that both the Department and the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority will provide every assistance to help the National Audit Office with any investigations.
Finally, the health authority has put in a considerable amount of both management effort and resources to ensure HSA's continued existence. The authority will happily discuss the transfer with hon. Members and will continue to do all that it can to transfer HSA out of the public sector to the best advantage of the NHS.

Social Enterprise

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his promotion. I am delighted that his first duty in the House is to examine the social enterprise sector.
Social enterprises, developed by social entrepreneurs as local responses to problems of neglect, marginalisation or the withdrawal of services, have often developed in the teeth of considerable financial, logistical and institutional barriers. In our first 20 months in office, the Government have instigated a range of measures from the new deal for communities, the creation of the regional development agencies, employment zones, and the coming deregulation of credit unions, to the cross-Government action teams on exclusion. Between them, those initiatives offer an excellent opportunity to break down the barriers inhibiting social enterprise and to promote the active expansion of the sector. Nevertheless, we still need an overarching strategy to tackle the problems of lack of recognition, lack of effective support and inability to access finance that are experienced by far too many social entrepreneurs and successful social enterprises.
Development trusts, co-operatives, neighbourhood projects, credit unions and community businesses are all examples of social enterprises that provide employment and training opportunities, locally needed services or a combination of all three. They operate on a commercial basis, but, rather than seeking a narrow gain for an individual investor, their principal aim is to maximise the social profit for the community in which they are located. Successful social enterprises, therefore, have combined the hard-headed financial skills of the private sector with a strong commitment to their locality and have succeeded in giving many a much stronger stake in their community.
Despite their considerable current contributions, and their potential, we do not yet celebrate in any organised or national manner our most dynamic social entrepreneurs. Neither do we trumpet the achievements of our most successful social enterprises. There is an annual round of rewards for the enterprise or entrepreneur of the year, but there is no similar ceremony to recognise the social entrepreneur of the year, and the sector's success stories are often little known beyond their immediate participants.
The North Kensington amenities development trust, for example, uses its assets under the Westway to generate rental income from more than 90 business tenancies. That income is used to fund leisure facilities, a youth training centre and large rent subsidies for the more than 20 voluntary groups that are located on its site.
The Bromley By Bow centre, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), has grown—since a small church congregation decided to make use of its underused buildings—into a thriving community resource which now provides community care services, education activities, health projects and employment schemes. It was made possible by the local community's full involvement and leadership.
The Speke credit union was established in 1989, in its local community in Liverpool, and has grown considerably since, two years ago, it took over the

building housing the area's last bank. The credit union provides basic financial services to its 1,500 members, and is now funding skills training for jobs in computers, book-keeping and marketing.
Social enterprises have increased skills, confidence and economic activity in the communities in which they operate. However, rigorous analysis and support across Government, the financial services industry and regional and local agencies are absolutely essential if the social enterprise sector is to develop and fulfil its potential for regeneration.
Social enterprises often do not sit comfortably within the boundaries of more traditional definitions. They may have charitable status, yet still operate a range of highly commercial services. They may be a limited company, under whose auspices various not-for-profit services are offered. They often have highly diverse funding streams, ranging from statutory body grant income, members' savings and lottery funding, to commercial bank loans and equity and rental income.
A lack of understanding and awareness of the potential for social enterprise remains a key problem confronting social entrepreneurs seeking finance and support for their ideas. The Conservative party's sustained attack over the past 20 years on local government has led not only to a decline in the finance available for grants and loans to the third sector but, more importantly, to the loss of much of the staffing support for new social enterprises and, hence, access to the mentoring, technical assistance and basic skills training that is required by all social entrepreneurs at one time or another.
The growth of telephone banking, the centralisation of bank lending and the consequent tide of bank branch closures has made capital and support much harder to access for social enterprises, particularly in areas of deprivation. The social enterprise sector has consistently highlighted the reluctance of many mainstream bankers to understand and fund an enterprise, even when hard-headed evidence has been provided of an initiative's profit potential. The inability to access private sector finance is a significant block on development of the social enterprise sector. The Charities Aid Foundation estimates that, in the run-up to the millennium, the sector needs more than £250 million investment over and above current grant-based income.
The problem is not only one of finance. Many training and enterprise councils do not do enough to support social entrepreneurs. One council that I spoke to, for example, has successfully provided support, technical assistance and seed-corn finance to social entrepreneurs. However, it admitted that such help is not standard and was no longer available in most of its area.
In response to the problems faced by the sector, some social entrepreneurs have attempted to develop strategic responses to the lack of finance and support. The New Economics Foundation recently highlighted the growing number of imaginative but relatively small community finance initiatives, which also offer technical assistance for social enterprises ranging from mutual guarantee schemes and reinvestment trusts to community loan funds.
The Aston reinvestment trust, for example, specialises in providing loan finance at commercial rates to small businesses and third sector projects in Birmingham that were unable to secure loans from banks. The projects that it funds are viable, but not bankable. Access, not the cost of the loan, has been the key problem.
Many of the projects were unable to secure loan finance because they lacked a track record or were unable to provide accounts over a sufficiently long period, although they were able to demonstrate their ability to repay a loan. Moreover, many of the loans that the Aston trust has made so far originated with banks bringing projects to the trust for part-financing. The consequent financial package has therefore often included a partnership between the bank and the trust—and sometimes Birmingham city council—to provide the necessary loan finance that the banks felt unable to provide on their own.
Since establishment of the council's social investment fund, in June 1997, £740,000 has been raised from individuals, companies and housing associations. A further £850,000 has been levered in from the banking sector by using the type of joint financing that I mentioned.
Successful community finance initiatives, as in the Aston example, are usually partnerships between the voluntary, private and public sectors—collaborating, for example, with banks for equity and borrowed capital or secondments, and with providers of technical assistance, such as local authority enterprise agencies or business links. They have developed considerable understanding of financing in their specific areas and provide a range of services, from commercial and micro-loans to grants, savings arrangements, assistance with training and help in developing effective business plans.
As research by the New Economics Foundation has highlighted, there is still a considerable gap between the potential of social enterprise and the capacity of current community finance initiatives to respond to it. Only five localities in the United Kingdom, for example, have dedicated local community loan funds. Recent growth in credit unions has been in workplace credit unions and not community credit unions. According to the bodies Industrial Common Ownership Movement—ICOM—and Industrial Common Ownership Finance—ICOF, the number of established co-operative development agencies, which are some of the more established support mechanisms for social enterprises, has declined from over 100 in the mid-1980s to only 30.
Research by Kingston university, which was highlighted by the New Economics Foundation, reveals that over one fifth of the loan funds that it had identified in the early 1990s as being accessible to social enterprise had closed within just 12 months. The majority of current loan funds and mutual guarantee schemes for social enterprises have been established within the past five years.
Fundamental in developing opportunities for social entrepreneurs and supporting development of social enterprises must be further changes in attitudes within the financial services industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), in a ten-minute Bill, rightly highlighted the success of America's Community Reinvestment Act—which, with related legislation, has ensured that £300 billion to £400 billion has been allocated by mainstream banks to meet community lending needs. The banks have subsequently found that considerable profits can be made in the process.
Crucial to the legislation's success has been development of effective partnerships between banks and community finance initiatives. Those involved in the initiatives have been able, because of their existing

relationships with potential customers and knowledge of the local economy, to break down the barriers between banks and social enterprises.
The picture in Britain is not entirely bleak. Some parts of the financial services industry are responding to the need to provide investment funding and support for social enterprises, as the example of the Aston trust demonstrates. Unity bank, the Triodos bank and the Co-operative bank have support programmes. One of the major clearing banks, for example, has just announced a package of measures to help credit unions. Although those moves are welcome, the level of support, understanding and access to finance provided by the financial services industry has nowhere near reached its potential. Action is now needed further to stimulate private sector involvement in the social enterprise sector.
The Government, too, have to improve the access of social enterprises to basic help, training and technical aid. Fledgling pure commercial enterprises can turn to training and enterprise councils and business links and, through them, are able to access myriad training schemes and specialist support, as well as ideas for sources of finance. The remit of TECs should be specifically extended to require them to develop and support social entrepreneurs and social enterprises.
The guidance published for the regional development agencies rightly refers to the importance of community businesses and community enterprise. RDAs should be specifically required to draw up strategies to promote social enterprise, to ensure that the range of necessary technical expertise is available and to identify the needs of social enterprises in their regions.
RDAs should be supporting and stimulating the growth of community finance initiatives that are able to fund and provide the development finance for social enterprise. Indeed, RDAs should be the stimulus to partnership between community finance initiatives and the banking sector, using their resources to help to lever in private sector finance.
At macro level, Government action to stimulate social investment is crucial. One model, to which I have referred in other debates in the House, is the tax relief system for green investment funds operating in the Netherlands, which has levered almost £200 million of private finance into environmental projects since the establishment of the funds in 1995.
The funds are offered to the public by banks and are regulated through the Dutch central bank, with projects that are to be funded licensed by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. The interest or dividends generated by the green investment funds are exempt from income tax, which allows the bank to pass on favourable terms to the project being financed. The certificates of the first such funds, to the value of £150 million, were sold out in only nine days. Similar funding streams backed by tax relief have been developed in America and elsewhere.
Social investment funds in this country have already supported social enterprise. Without Government action to stimulate them, however, such funds will remain at comparatively low levels. The evidence from the successful, but small scale, funding initiatives taken by bodies such as ICOM, ICOF or, indeed, the Aston reinvestment trust, is that there is strong latent desire


among the public to be able to invest their savings in social enterprises while still receiving an acceptable rate of return.
The Aston reinvestment trust is keen to begin paying interest to the investors in its social investment fund, which would ensure that they receive some return and would help to attract more investors. A system of carefully regulated tax relief on such investment funds would undoubtedly help to spur that process and lever much larger sums of private finance into the social enterprise sector.
The Government, too, should consider how else they can support access to finance for the social enterprise sector. Loan guarantees mirroring the small firms loan guarantee scheme, or the deployment of part of the RDA budgets for community loan funds, have also been highlighted as options for encouraging private sector finance to invest in social enterprise.
Social enterprises and, indeed, social entrepreneurs are powerful forces for regeneration, community empowerment and increased employment. I hope that this debate, even though it is brief, will serve further to promote these enterprises and entrepreneurs, who do not get the recognition that they deserve.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate and thank him for his kind words. He has raised an issue that is important in its own right and has set out cogently and persuasively the case for social enterprise. Social enterprise is also important because it is part of a wider agenda of promoting all forms of enterprise, which lies at the heart of Government policy.
We live in a rapidly changing world in which certainty is a luxury. Patterns of work are changing faster than ever before, and knowledge, skills and creativity, and the people who possess them, are our most valuable assets. People, and the organisations in which they operate, must change—and respond to changing circumstances—to survive and thrive.
Europe is becoming a unified market with the potential to match the United States, but only those United Kingdom businesses that are ready and willing to think and operate on a European scale will benefit. The world economy is open as never before, with larger markets offering greater opportunities, but competitors are stronger and more numerous.
New technologies offer scope for new products, and shorter product cycles make it easier for new entrants to compete with established players, but constant product refinement and development are required to keep pace with those developing technologies. Science is generating new industries faster than ever before.
Enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation, in the broadest sense, are central to that new economy, promoting growth, increasing productivity and creating jobs—but enterprise does not happen in a vacuum; it is part of a wider social, educational and cultural environment. Enterprise cannot flourish unless it exists in a cohesive and inclusive society.
The Government are determined to build a dynamic economy driven by vigorous competition and commitment to enterprise, but we are also committed to a fairer and more inclusive society. The competitiveness White Paper, which we published at the end of last year, set out our vision of how we will encourage economic growth and regeneration at national and local level to promote wealth, widen individual options for employment and create opportunities for all.
The Chancellor's pre-Budget report and the White Paper set out the next steps in the Government's strategy for modernising the economy. The debate has highlighted how we need to build a more inclusive framework within which that new, dynamic economy can flourish. We need to ensure that everyone is given the opportunity to realise their potential—in business, as in every area of life: young and old, and men and women, of whatever ethnic origin and wherever they live.
We want business opportunities for the many, not the few. That is why the Government are working with business, banks, business support providers and a raft of other players to promote enterprise throughout this country.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. On his last point, and the point about financial institutions supporting social enterprise, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), one area of concern is that the financial institutions—the high street banks and building societies—have left whole areas of our inner cities. How are the Government encouraging the banks and building societies to go back and become involved with local communities, even though they are impoverished, so that they can play a partnership role with the social entrepreneurs who are the bedrock of such initiatives?

Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I shall address it in a moment.
We are working with all those financial players to promote enterprise, and a number of key principles underlie our approach. We are fostering an enterprise culture that encourages innovators and risk takers; provides and maintains a supportive economic environment; identifies and removes barriers to growth; and provides business support of the highest quality to firms, at all stages of their development.
We simply cannot afford to miss any opportunity to encourage each and every form of economic activity. We cannot afford the human and economic waste of individuals being denied the opportunity to realise their potential. We must not tolerate the persistence of poverty, unemployment and despair anywhere in this country.
As my hon. Friends have suggested, that requires the wholehearted commitment of many players, not least the new regional development agencies. They have a crucial role to play in taking forward measures to raise regional skills, to encourage links between business and education, to review the coherence and quality of business support provided through the business links and TECs in their areas and, in so doing, to strengthen their communities.
The Government are also considering new measures to support the growth of smaller businesses in areas of particular need—for example, coalfield communities,


coastal towns and countryside areas, which are suffering steep decline in traditional employment, and cities and towns with severe joblessness. Those measures will complement action to combat social exclusion and will link with other Government programmes to combat deprivation, such as the employment zones, health action zones, the new deal for communities, the single regeneration budget and the new coalfields enterprise fund. That is what joined-up government is all about. I should also mention the initiative launched last year by the Prime Minister to establish a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. To take that forward, the Government have set up a number of policy action teams. These teams of experts, each with a champion Minister, are working together to solve some of the most intractable problems faced by deprived neighbourhoods.
The teams consist of representatives from the communities themselves, and from business, local and national government and the voluntary sector. They are consulting widely as part of their work. The teams will report by December, so that their work can inform and shape the national policy for neighbourhood renewal, which will be put in place early next year.
The Department of Trade and Industry has a team looking at access to information and communication technologies. It is vital that people living in those neighbourhoods can connect to the real opportunities and activities now being offered by the information revolution. We cannot have a nation divided between information "haves" and "have nots".
Last November, the Economic Secretary announced a package of measures to help to expand the credit union movement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West suggested, credit unions do invaluable work in providing some of the poorer members of our society with savings facilities, low-cost credit, which has traditionally been a problem for them, and financial education. That gives people most in need the opportunity to build up a good credit record, which would otherwise be denied them. The proposed measures, on which the Government are currently consulting, include allowing credit unions to offer interest-bearing share accounts, making the common bond requirement more flexible to allow more people to join, increasing flexibility in relation to accounts for young people, extending repayment periods for loans, and removing the current 5,000 maximum membership limit.
Those measures, along with proposals for the future regulation of the credit union sector under the Financial Services Authority, will allow the sector freedom to develop, but, at the same time, ensure that adequate protection is in place for savers. A further important initiative is that the banks and credit unions task force is exploring how banks and building societies can work more closely with credit unions to increase their effectiveness.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report entitled "Small is bankable: Community reinvestment in the UK", which was published last year, found that, although there is a wide variety of community finance initiatives, they do not fully fill the financing gap between the demand for small enterprise finance in deprived areas and the supply from commercial lenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has given the House further evidence of that in relation to the social enterprise sector.
There are already examples of good practice. For example, credit unions are beginning to take hold, and we shall do what we can to encourage them. Some of the high street banks are already doing excellent work. There are community loan funds, several of which have now formed a UK association—the Rebuilding Society Network; micro-finance funds, the largest of which, the Prince's youth business trust, has assets of £21 million; mutual guarantee societies; and social banks, of which Triodos bank has some £52 million assets in the UK.
The challenge now for the Government is to explore how best to extend nationwide the best practice of the most successful local community finance initiatives, while enabling local partnerships to devise the most appropriate forms of financial support for all the enterprises operating in their areas.
Crucial as they are, it is not just financial issues that matter; it is also the attitude and good will of all the players at the local level. That lies behind many of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made. We need to create a sympathetic culture, and I have referred already to the pivotal role that the regional development agencies will play in that respect.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the training and enterprise councils and said that he wanted them to do more. I commend the report produced recently by the TEC national council equal opportunities advisory committee on how the TECs and the chambers of commerce are tackling social exclusion. Equality and social exclusion are integral to the work of all TEC national council policy committees, which are charged with
seeking proactively to ensure that funding mechanisms, entitlement policies and associated regulatory and support regimes enable all individuals to participate to the full extent that they are able".

The Government's approach is holistic. It is based on a fundamental commitment to a fair and just society for everyone by stimulating enterprise, creating employment, encouraging everyone to maximise his or her potential and protecting those in greatest need. The Government recognise that it is not for us to do that on our own. We can do it only with, and in support of, effort by others. That is why last year the Prime Minister initiated the Giving Age project, which is now being taken forward by the Home Office. It aims to rebuild a sense of community throughout the UK by encouraging and supporting all forms of community involvement.
Another project, UK Cares, is led by Business in the Community with support from the Government as well as from some of our best-known companies. It aims to modernise the concept of employee volunteering to enable many more businesses and employees to contribute to the communities in which they live and work.
My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the social economy—the so-called third sector—and he was right to do so. Social enterprise has particular qualities, aims and values that place human achievement and enrichment at the forefront of all its activities. We have only to remember the Rochdale pioneers and their selfless work, which started in the local community but extended far beyond their own dreams to influence today's society. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that, both directly and indirectly, the Government share the values


implicit, and explicit, in what he has expressed today and recognise the need to support them through practical actions.
I am convinced that one way in which the Government can help is by ensuring that all those who are involved in running social enterprises are helped to become more professional and better equipped with the skills, knowledge and acumen that create profitable businesses and successful organisations. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the wealth of advice and support that is available is extended to the third sector. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the sector itself to take advantage of what is available, to make demands on business links and training and enterprise councils, and on

all who provide enterprise support in the UK. If that support is sought and help is not forthcoming, I should like to know about it. I hope that my hon. Friends will inform me about it so that I can sort it out.
The Department of Trade and Industry is committed to continuing to work closely with other Whitehall Departments to ensure that the social economy has its rightful place on the Government's agenda. In my role as Minister responsible for small businesses, I shall do whatever I can to promote this very worthwhile aspect of the enterprise spectrum. Furthermore, I undertake to report again to my hon. Friend by Easter on the progress that I have been able to make on these issues.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Trade Links

Mr. David Watts: What steps she is taking to promote trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. [64854]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit organise and support company participation in trade exhibitions in Great Britain, meet-the-buyer events and other trade initiatives. The IDB, LEDU and the Northern Ireland growth challenge have been developing links between Northern Ireland suppliers and major Great Britain purchasers.

Mr. Watts: Does the Minister agree with me that such trading links help the peace process in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is leading a campaign to improve trade links between the north-west and Northern Ireland? Will his Department provide all possible help to ensure that those initiatives are successful?

Mr. Ingram: Obviously, I agree that any improvement in the economic landscape of Northern Ireland helps the peace process. My hon. Friend is also right about the development of links. As the new regional development agencies evolve in England, they will seek new trading partnerships, and Northern Ireland is an area in which they could enhance those relationships. Many opportunities exist, and undoubtedly Northern Ireland will look for increased trade with the north-west of England, and the north-west will seek increased trade with Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister will, I am sure, agree that the trading links between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are essential to the prosperity of our economy. Does he agree with me that the new British-Irish Council provides an ideal forum within which those trading links can be explored and developed, and that, for the future of Northern Ireland, the natural framework for trade is the British Isles as a whole? The British-Irish Council provides an opportunity to develop those links.

Mr. Ingram: The answer is yes. There will also be many other opportunities, as hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) highlighted. We must look for every opportunity to improve trading links. I imagine that the new Assembly and the new Minister who will be appointed to deal with the development of the economy will take a progressive approach to this matter.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend report on the progress of the electricity

interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland, which will enable people throughout the island of Ireland to take advantage of competitively priced electricity generated in my constituency? Does he agree that the best possible way of promoting trade and prosperity in and around Northern Ireland must be the continuing success of the peace process?

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend refers to the energy network, which is one of the important links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—indeed, the whole island of Ireland. We were pleased that the two private companies, Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Power, came to an agreement on the interconnector. I am sure that, in the years ahead, it will improve the overall energy base in Northern Ireland. We are also trying to attract gas companies into the economy. More competition will eventually drive down prices.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister agree that the extremely valuable trade links would be improved if the wholly unacceptable policy of releasing terrorists—

Madam Speaker: Order. There are questions on that issue further down the Order Paper. This question is about trade links. Many Members want to put a question on this issue, so will the hon. Member confine his remarks to trade and wait until later to refer to decommissioning? I know what he is on about.

Mr. Soames: I will, indeed.
Does the Minister agree that the restoration of peace under proper circumstances is extremely important to the trading position and the links between Northern Ireland and the mainland? Will he assure me that he will bear in mind the fact that it is necessary to have a proper, orderly security situation in Ulster?

Mr. Ingram: The answer is yes. We need both: peace and prosperity are inextricably linked. That is why the Good Friday agreement provides a framework for the creation of a peaceful environment in which new economic development can take place. That requires the two Governments and all parties to the agreement to honour the commitments in the agreement.

Operational Responsibilities

Mr. Ken Maginnis: If she will make a statement on the definition of operational matters as it applies to the responsibilities of the Chief Constable and of the General Officer Commanding. [64855]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Under statutory arrangements for the tripartite governance of policing, the Chief Constable has responsibility for the "direction and control" of the police force. The Government fully recognise the importance of the operational independence of the police.
The armed forces in Northern Ireland provide military aid for the civil powers in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As such, all operational military activity is provided to support the RUC.

Mr. Maginnis: In so far as that is the case, will the Minister reassure me that decisions made by the Chief


Constable for operational reasons and supported by the GOC are not exploited unwisely by the Northern Ireland Office for political reasons? Will he reassure me that explanations for action by the Chief Constable for strictly operational reasons need not be made public solely to placate Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and other members of Sinn Fein-IRA? Will the Minister also reassure me that neither he nor the Secretary of State will give assurances about where police stations will or will not be rebuilt after their destruction by IRA activity?
Most of us accept the need for community policing. Any refusal to restore police stations in towns such as Ballygawley would be deeply resented.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. Let me deal with what I consider to be the main thrust of his inquiries.
The Chief Constable, and the GOC who supports him, constitute between them one of the main providers of security advice for the Secretary of State. They operate—this is certainly true of the Chief Constable—entirely in relation to the entitlement to operational independence that I defined in my answer. There is a good working relationship: there is a good partnership between all involved in the delivery of security in Northern Ireland. That will continue.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Ballygawley RUC station. Having visited Ballygawley last autumn, I understand the point that he is making; but the Chief Constable must decide on his priorities in terms of the building or rebuilding of stations. He has submitted his proposals on a prioritised basis, and the Secretary of State has accepted them. To that extent, his view has prevailed.

Irish Language

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on developments in promoting the Irish language. [64856]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): In June last year, the Government announced their intention to sign the Council of Europe charter for regional or minority languages, and to specify Irish for the purposes of part III of the charter at an early date. In July, the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 was enacted, placing a statutory duty on the Department of Education in Northern Ireland to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education. A new branch within the Northern Ireland civil service is being established to develop policy on linguistic diversity, including the Irish language. The agreement of 18 December 1998 determined that there should be a cross-border implementation body with responsibility for promoting the Irish language.

Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend tell us what progress has been made with the cross-border language implementation body? Will he confirm that he is considering not just the Irish but the Ulster-Scots? Perhaps he can also tell us whether Irish will be permitted to be used in the new Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. McFall: In answer to the question about the cross-border body, I can say that the 18 December

statement from the office of the First and Deputy First Ministers announced agreement on matters for north-south co-operation and implementation by Departments. Among the six implementation bodies is one dealing with language. It will have a number of functions, including promoting the Irish language and facilitating and encouraging its use. As for the Ulster-Scots, £108,000 has been spent on a study.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Can the Minister say how much all that will cost the British taxpayer?

Mr. McFall: What I can say is that it is money well spent. If the hon. Gentleman had been in Northern Ireland when the comprehensive spending review was announced, he would have noted that there were bumper solutions for education and health. Following many years of not receiving the help that they should have received for special problems, the people of Northern Ireland, like the Government, are celebrating.

Ms Margaret Moran: I am sure that Labour Members recognise the commitment to encouraging the Irish language in Northern Ireland. May I ask the Minister to pass on our thanks to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who also recognises the Irish language, it being part of the curriculum on this side of the pond?
Does the Minister remember the reply to a question that I raised on 28 October about promotion of the Irish language in Derry, which referred to a grant of £120,000 to Meanscoil Dhoire, the Irish language school in Derry? Is he aware that only £60,000 of the grant has been made available to the school and that there are serious difficulties in promoting the Irish language in the city? Will he undertake to investigate, so that we truly promote the Irish language throughout the Province?

Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for her positive comments on the Government's measures to assist Irish-medium education. She will know—it is of great interest to her—that 200 places have been funded in Irish-medium pre-school settings from September 1998 under a pre-school expansion programme.
My hon. Friend mentions Meanscoil Dhoire, the independent Irish-medium school in Derry. Unfortunately, it does not meet current viability thresholds, so cannot be grant-aided. However, negotiations are taking place—I have been involved in them personally—to establish the school as a grant-aided Irish-medium unit at a neighbouring school. In the meantime, as she says, it receives recurrent funding of £120,000 from the European Union peace package, but I will look into the specific point that she mentions about funding not being fully spent.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the promotion of Irish language study in Northern Ireland would be easier if it were not for the perception that the Irish language has been hijacked by extreme republican elements in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that expertise and qualifications in subject areas that are sought by employers help to promote those subject areas? Where will young people with a qualification in Irish language have career prospects in Northern Ireland?


Should not every effort be made to raise the standard of skill and qualification in the use of English language? Should that not be promoted above the Irish language and, indeed, Ulster-Scots?

Mr. McFall: Those are not exclusive. The Belfast agreement points not only to the Irish language, but to Ulster-Scots. Activities in relation to that have amounted to expenditure by the Government of £108,000. Only last week, I was in training centres and further education establishments in Springfield road and off Shankill road, where I took great delight in talking to people from a traditionally loyalist area, who told me that they were taking part in courses in Irish history. They had a proud tradition. They wanted to celebrate that proud tradition and, in doing so, they were emphasising the importance of two cultures getting along.

Collaborative Disabled Sports Projects

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: What progress has been made in furthering collaborative disabled sports projects between young people from both communities. [64858]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): Work with disabled people, primarily young people, is a priority for the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, which has trebled investment in that key target group over the past three years. That work crosses community boundaries.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank the Minister for that answer. Those events are well supported by all sections of the community. Anything that brings people together has to be welcomed; unfortunately, the charitable and voluntary sectors are now funding many of those events and there is a danger that some of them will not take place. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said about the Sports Council, will he ensure that local authorities and others try to keep those events going?

Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He makes an important point. In Northern Ireland, the role of voluntary organisations is extremely important, particularly in relation to disabled sports. I have been encouraging the Sports Council for Northern Ireland to look at that matter. I think that he will welcome the points that I make.
Over past years, the council has increased its investment in sport for people with disabilities; that has included both financial support and technical guidance. In 1998, the council established and provided for an independent federation of organisations with an interest in disability sports known as Disability Sports (Northern Ireland). Therefore, the voluntary sector is being attended to. It is important that we encourage developments in those areas, particularly among the youth and across communities.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that the divisions were not between the communities in so far as most of those with disabilities were going to the same schools, but were the result of separate sports provision for the blind, the deaf, paraplegics and those with learning disabilities? Will the

Minister accept the welcome that has been given to the new body which is bringing together representatives of those sports, of local authorities and of those with physical education specialities?

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about cross-community sport. I mentioned previously a number of areas to which the Sports Council has been channelling resources and where facilities are available. Those include Northern Ireland Blind Sports, the Northern Ireland Paraplegic Association, the Ulster Deaf Sports Council and the Northern Ireland branch of the United Kingdom Sports Association for People with Learning Difficulties. But they will work towards and enhance provision only if it is cross-community, and everyone, irrespective of religion, race and gender is accommodated. That is an important point which I have discussed with representatives of the Sports Council and which I will ensure is emphasised.

Mr. John Bercow: Is the Minister satisfied that collaborative sports projects for disabled young people from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland currently receive a proportionate share of national lottery proceeds?

Mr. McFall: If the hon. Gentleman knows Northern Ireland, he will know that the voluntary organisations comprise a large and important part of it. We have been encouraging such groups to apply for national lottery funds and for facilities through the new opportunities fund. More can be done in that regard. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of those groups sometimes do not have access to the correct information. It is important that that is disseminated to them and that they have the expertise to fill in the forms. It is important that their awareness is heightened. I fully support the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question and I shall promote his view.

Decommissioning

Mr. Tony Baldry: If she will make a statement on the decommissioning of terrorist weapons in Northern Ireland. [64859]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I welcome the positive act of the Loyalist Volunteer Force decommissioning which took place on 18 December. While discussions continue between representatives of other groups and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, it is now time for them to start decommissioning also. The agreement must be implemented in full and decommissioning is an indispensable part of it.

Mr. Baldry: I do not think that any hon. Member would disagree with the Secretary of State's answer, but it is a fundamental part of good faith in the whole process that there should be decommissioning, and if people cannot have trust in the decommissioning process, how can they have trust in any other part of the process?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree that decommissioning is an essential part of the agreement and trust on all sides is necessary for it to move forward. We need to see progress on all aspects of the Good Friday agreement.


Decommissioning is an essential part of that agreement and should happen. It is not a precondition; it is an obligation.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am sure that the Secretary of State and the whole House will join me in condemning the cowardly bomb attack by the Orange volunteers on the house of Patrick Shields last night, not far from where I live in my constituency. It is particularly poignant in that Loughinisland, a small rural community, has already been visited by the loyalist paramilitaries, when six of its people were machine-gunned to death on a summer's night. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to resolve the problem of decommissioning and violence is to establish a strong, cross-community government of the people? Will she call on all the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, of whatever party or attitude, to work together to ensure that the will of the people, expressed through referendums and in actions, is immediately implemented?

Marjorie Mowlam: I share the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of last night's barbaric behaviour. I condemn any group from either side of the community that indulges in such behaviour. The security forces are doing all that they can to stop such people. I hope that those who have information will go to the security forces. I know that sometimes that is difficult because of threats, but that is the way to stop such behaviour. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we shall achieve that if we implement the Good Friday agreement and show people that there is an alternative to the violence of the past if communities work together to build for the future.

Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State will be aware that, only last week, Martin McGuinness alleged that, during the talks process, Sinn Fein made it clear to the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister that it could not deliver IRA decommissioning or disarmament. Is that allegation correct?

Marjorie Mowlam: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that what is important is that decommissioning happens. Many words have been spoken in the past year by people on all sides in Northern Ireland. It is important that progress should be made, with parties talking together to build for the future. Decommissioning is essential. Regardless of what parties have said in the past, efforts should be made to implement the Good Friday agreement in full.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are totally committed to achieving decommissioning through the peace process, particularly in view of the risk of armaments falling into the hands of terrorist groups—republican or loyalist—that continue to oppose the agreement violently?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing all that we can to encourage decommissioning, but, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, progress will be made by implementing all parts of the Good Friday agreement. Decommissioning is an essential part of it. If the weapons are collected sooner rather than

later, it will be tougher for the small number of groups that are out to destroy the peace process to find arms to facilitate that.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: We have often heard politicians associated with terrorist organisations promising that they are doing their best to secure decommissioning. What does "doing their best" mean? Does the Secretary of State have any way of measuring what they are doing to turn their fine words into results?

Marjorie Mowlam: The best way to determine whether the words of effort are serious is to look at the work being done by the parties with the decommissioning body—the meetings that are held and the discussions that are had. In addition, whenever I meet the parties involved with paramilitary weapons and decommissioning, I encourage, nag and cajole them to ensure that they are seriously doing all that they can. There is no true substitute for decommissioning, which we all want.

Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not the role of the British Government to attempt to rewrite the Good Friday agreement, which was endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of the island of Ireland? To make decommissioning a precondition would amount to rewriting the Belfast agreement.

Marjorie Mowlam: It is important to ensure that the Good Friday agreement is implemented in full, to the letter. We are trying to do that, in conjunction with the Irish Government where relevant. We hear a lot of uncertainty and negative statements. Sometimes a little more positive confidence from both sides of the House would help the process no end.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Secretary of State agree that no institution of government claiming to be democratic could conceivably include representatives of a party said by the Secretary of State to be inextricably linked with armed terrorists? Is she aware that the Chief Constable has said that two parties in the Assembly—Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party—represent terrorist groups? Those terrorist groups are currently committing breaches of the ceasefire by mutilating and murdering citizens on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland.

Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I disagree on the interpretation of the Chief Constable's words. I read the Chief Constable's words as meaning that there are paramilitary groups on all sides, in a generic sense, involved in punishment beatings, but that he lacks the evidence that is needed in a court of law. Rumour cannot hold in a court of law, and we have to follow the rule of law. Unless we have the evidence, it is impossible to act. I shall keep the situation under review, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Chief Constable's words were generic and that he said clearly that, in his opinion, all groups were still on ceasefire.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: In his new year message to the people of Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said that there was a clear obligation on decommissioning. Given the 10 March deadline for the


handover of powers to the new Assembly, will the Secretary of State assure the House that, if there is no decommissioning by that date, she will not impose an Executive structure and ministerial posts on the Assembly?

Marjorie Mowlam: I think that that contribution illustrates what I said about how it would be more helpful if sometimes a more confident and positive approach, rather than a negative one, were taken. We aim to have everything in place by 10 March, especially if the Assembly approves the reports given to it by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 15 February; it is clear that we need to get that through first. The hon. Gentleman will know that it does not help to prejudge decisions, so let us get the Assembly's decision on those reports before looking at what happens next. It is obvious that acting without support across the community and across the parties would mean that decisions taken would not work.

Peace Process

Mr. Jim Murphy: If she will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [64860]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I welcome the agreement reached before Christmas, which was supported this week in the Assembly, on the number and functions of ministerial offices and on areas for north-south co-operation. It is hoped that it will be approved by the Assembly on 15 February, but, before that happens, a lot of detailed work has to be done in consultation with the parties in the Assembly. However, I believe that it should be possible to complete that legislative programme in preparation for devolution in the middle of March.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Will she tell the House what impact the Assembly's decision on departmental issues will have on the establishment of shadow institutions, in particular, the introduction of the shadow Executive? Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that the shadow Executive are needed if the people of Northern Ireland are to be able to get to work building the hospitals and schools that are essential to their communities.

Marjorie Mowlam: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are due to make their final report to the Assembly on 15 February. The party leaders will then have to decide whom to appoint for their parties, and to which posts on the shadow Executive they should be appointed. The appointments will be made at a subsequent meeting of the Assembly, which I would expect to take place early in March, if we are to be ready to transfer powers by mid-March.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in recent weeks, there has been a nauseating increase in punishment beatings, mutilations, intimidation and the number of ordinary decent people being driven from their homes? Is that not in total breach of the Good Friday agreement? She and I know full well

that the paramilitaries involved in those beatings also signed up to the Good Friday agreement and were supposed to have renounced violence in all its forms.

Marjorie Mowlam: I join the right hon. Gentleman in condemning outright punishment beatings across the board. They are barbaric acts. However, we must act on the evidence not rumours. If we do not, there is a chance that the courts will not be able to deliver the kind of detail that the prosecution cases will need. Of course we condemn the punishment beatings, but I warn Opposition Members to be careful in saying that they will name people, because that could be contrary to what the families and the Royal Ulster Constabulary want.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Gillian Merron: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Gillian Merron: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite being some 90 years late, today's announcement to scrap hereditary peers makes it a great day for democracy? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, in getting rid of that out-of-date privilege, we shall see more up-to-date progress on health, education and jobs—the things that matter most to the people whom we represent?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We shall see progress on all the things that will help to modernise this country and make it a more just and fair society. The Government are in favour of the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, Bank of England independence and £40 billion more for health and education. The Opposition are in favour of hereditary peers. That is the difference between the two parties.

Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister may have seen the latest and mounting reports in this morning's newspapers—the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), raised the matter during Northern Ireland questions—of terrorist beatings in Northern Ireland. This morning's reports concern Andrew Peden, who was tortured for 10 hours and left to die, and who lost both his legs. His wife says that he cries out every night as he relives the experience. Beatings such as that are happening in increasing numbers, yet we are still releasing early prisoners belonging to the organisations responsible for those crimes. Does the Prime Minister agree that the beatings are a breach of the Good Friday agreement?

The Prime Minister: Any punishment beatings at all are a breach of the agreements that have been entered into. This has always been a very difficult issue with which


the previous Government grappled during the first IRA ceasefire. Indeed, they continued their early release scheme for prisoners although punishment attacks were occurring at that time. However, I agree that such attacks are totally unacceptable and we are doing everything that we possibly can to bring them to an end.

Mr. Hague: We agree with the Prime Minister about trying to bring punishment beatings to an end. However, he must know that it is not right to compare release schemes under the previous Government with the release scheme that is now in progress. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear that those who had committed the most heinous crimes would not be released until the end of the first decade of the next century, and that remission did not apply to people who had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The cases are not comparable.
I remind the Prime Minister that, on 6 May last year, he said:
It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
The Prime Minister pledged to the people of Northern Ireland that terrorists would have to bring an end to bombings, killings and beatings; begin the progressive dismantling of paramilitary structures; and co-operate fully with the commission on decommissioning. Given that none of those things is happening yet—although we want them to—is it not time to stop the early release of terrorist prisoners?

The Prime Minister: We must judge this issue against all the evidence, including the security advice that we receive and the question whether we believe that the ceasefires have broken down. We do not believe that it is justified to conclude that. In saying that, I do not minimise our anxiety about the level of punishment beatings. We make very important judgments the whole time, and I believe that at present, on balance, we are making the right judgment. However, I do not minimise the difficulty involved.

Mr. Hague: Of course, the Prime Minister is right to say that we have to consider all the evidence. The Chief Constable of Northern Ireland said on Friday that
there is no doubt whatever that all of these organisations, including those who purport to be in cessations of military operations, are engaged in this repugnant activity.
The parents of RUC Constable David Sterrit, who know that I am raising their case today, have been told the dates on which their son's killers will be freed, and one of them—in an act of grotesque insensitivity by the Northern Ireland Office—will be released on the 10th anniversary of his murder.
Plans are being made months ahead for the early release of terrorists, seemingly without regard to whether any guns or bombs will be turned in. Is it not time that we put on hold the release of convicted terrorists, when they have not yet given up a single gun or bomb?

The Prime Minister: In the Sterrit case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the family explaining the circumstances.
It is true that the Chief Constable made the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman ascribed to him. However, he also said that he believed that the ceasefires were intact. We have to make a judgment. The right hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking us to bring the whole Good Friday agreement to an end. He has to think through the consequences of what he is saying. We continue to make our judgment in very difficult circumstances.
Incidentally, it is not correct that the previous Government's early release scheme did not include very serious crimes.
We believe, on balance, that our judgment is correct. The consequence of taking the course that the right hon. Gentleman is advocating would be more serious than he is saying.

Mr. Hague: Far from trying to damage the Good Friday agreement, we are calling for the agreement to be implemented. The Prime Minister has said, and the Northern Ireland Secretary rightly said in Question Time moments ago, that the Government are determined to implement the whole agreement. However, more than half the terrorists have now been released, the beatings, torturing and shootings go on and the storing of weapons continues.
Is it not true that every time a prisoner is released without weapons being handed in or beatings stopping, the Government are throwing away a valuable negotiating card in implementing the full agreement? We are getting nearer to the day when all the terrorists will have been released and what they were meant to do in return will not have been done. Although it is a matter of judgment, is not the right judgment now that a change of policy would be in the interests of lasting peace?

The Prime Minister: No, obviously I do not believe that to be the case. As I said, I understand why the right hon. Gentleman raises the issues in the way that he does. I emphasise that the prisoners are released on licence. There is not an amnesty. Indeed, the vast majority of those who are released would be released early in any event under schemes agreed by earlier Administrations.
Judgments on Northern Ireland are always difficult. The right hon. Gentleman will remember when it was revealed that the previous Government had been involved in secret negotiations with Sinn Fein, despite their denials. After the first IRA ceasefire, we continued to support the previous Government when they asked the IRA to declare the ceasefire permanent—if the right hon. Gentleman remembers, that was their demand—and when they subsequently dropped that demand. We followed them when they used the Washington 3 precondition of decommissioning before entry to talks and then effectively abandoned it. We did not demur when the Government suddenly decided in 1996 to declare that there had to be elections before all-party talks.
My point is not to criticise the previous Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not. It is simply to explain the difficulties of dealing with this situation. The situation is never perfect, but in 18 months we have come further than people believed that we could. That has been with all the difficulties—tactical, strategic and difficulties of principle—inherent in this situation. I repeat, we keep it under constant review, but if the right hon. Gentleman believes that were we to stop everything now it would


increase the chance of the Good Friday agreement being implemented, I have to say that my judgment is that that is wrong.

Mr. Hague: I return briefly to one remaining point on this. The Prime Minister points to a bipartisan policy in the last Parliament. Of course, it is true that the Labour Opposition often supported the Conservative Government at the time. It is also true that they voted against the anti-terrorist legislation of the Conservative Government, so let us be clear that bipartisanship on this is important, but it is not a blank cheque. Equally, this Opposition have supported and will continue to support the Government on the Good Friday agreement. The Prime Minister knows that we have given a great deal of support to the Government behind the scenes and will always do so whenever we are asked, but we make a different judgment on this particular question. I ask him to recognise that, for many people in this country, it is very difficult to understand how we can go along with the early release of terrorist prisoners when other things that were meant to happen at the same time are not being done.

The Prime Minister: I do not dispute in the least the right hon. Gentleman's entitlement to depart from us on issues of judgment. What I am trying to do is explain the reason why I have come to the judgment that I have. The reason that I mentioned the other aspects that happened when a previous Government were in office was simply to indicate that there are difficulties in this process, which will come with whatever Government are trying to deal with it.
The right hon. Gentleman says that nothing else is really being progressed in the Good Friday agreement at the moment. I do not think that that is true. I think that an awful lot has happened. We have got to the stage where we have the principle of consent now accepted in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, where everyone now supports the idea of the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly and where, if we can get the last bits of the agreement fulfilled, there can be a place for all parties to be part of the new Northern Ireland Executive. Even with the punishment beatings which, yes, I agree, are wholly unacceptable, we have ceasefires in effect. Even with all of that, I think that the process in the end yields benefits for people in Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues who are shouting "disgraceful" behind him that they can disagree with the judgment I am making, but I hope at least that they recognise that we are trying to make the judgment in good faith on the basis of what is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not dispute his right to disagree with that judgment; all I am trying to do as Prime Minister is explain why I think the judgment that I have made is still correct.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the threatened closure of the Wrangler jeans factory at Camelon in my constituency with the possible loss of about 500 jobs, which would be a devastating blow for the workers and their families and, indeed, for the whole of the local economy? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for urgent discussions with ministerial colleagues and representatives of the company and work force to see what can be done to try to save as many

jobs as possible, and deal with the crisis facing the entire clothing and textile industry, which is due mainly to high interest rates and the high value of sterling?

The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's last point, interest rates have now come down significantly, and the value of the pound is virtually back down to the level inherited at the time of the general election. However, on the specific prospective closure of the Wrangler jeans factory, I am certainly happy to make sure that representations are made to Ministers, and I am sure that my hon. Friend can be part of those representations. If there is any way that I can facilitate that, I will.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, following the atrocities at Racak in Kosovo and President Milosevic's unacceptable demands for the expulsion of the head of the Kosovo verification mission, if diplomatic means cannot persuade President Milosevic to return to compliance with the terms of the ceasefire, NATO stands ready in swift order to use military force to compel him to do so?

The Prime Minister: As we have said before, events in Racak were wholly unacceptable; it was a humanitarian outrage. Those responsible should be brought to justice speedily. The attempt by Milosevic to expel the head of the Kosovo verification mission is equally unacceptable. Unless Milosevic fully complies with what he agreed in October, and with the demands of the international community, he risks a rapid military response from NATO. NATO agreed this morning to shorten the notice to move its aircraft from 96 to 48 hours. We must move with the rest of our allies—obviously—but we certainly remain ready to act.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that response. Will he confirm that, although military action must of course have a clear political objective, nevertheless, in the final analysis, the international community could not stand idly by and watch Kosovo descend into a bloody civil war if President Milosevic attempts a final solution? Therefore, if all other means have failed, we may ultimately have to consider a NATO ground force in Kosovo.

The Prime Minister: I certainly share the view that, whatever the difficulties, the international community cannot walk away from Kosovo. We are ready to take whatever action is necessary. Indeed, without the credible threat of force, I do not believe that diplomacy will ever be sufficient. The United Kingdom will chair a contact group meeting in London on Friday. Before the question of further action is addressed, we must however be aware of two things.
First, we must act in concert with others and with our allies. Secondly, we must have clear political objectives in any action that we take. That does not simply involve negotiation with the Serbian side and with Milosevic. Full participation of the Kosovar side, including the Kosovo Liberation Army, which at the moment is refusing to participate in proper talks, is also necessary. It is important that both those are in place. If they are, we would certainly not rule out the possibility of participation in the use of ground forces.

Ms Debra Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very difficult position in which people


find themselves when they have a mortgage and there is violence in the home? Is he aware that my independent research into all high street banks and building societies suggests that they see houses only as financial institutions and not as homes? That has a significant effect on children who suffer violence in the home, too. Will he join me in calling on the Council of Mortgage Lenders to look urgently at its voluntary code of practice? Failing that, does he agree that we may need to take legislative action?

The Prime Minister: I would not commit us to legislative action, but I certainly agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making. It would certainly be worth while for the Council of Mortgage Lenders to consider what more it can do.

Sir Sydney Chapman: In his pre-Budget statement only 11 weeks ago, the Chancellor confidently forecast that growth this year would be up to 1.5 per cent. Today, the Treasury's economic assessment team has published a survey, which forecasts average growth this year of only just 0.6 per cent. Will the Prime Minister explain how his Chancellor can be so spectacularly wrong in such a short time?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that at all. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the average independent forecast is 0.6 per cent., compared with our forecast of 1 to 1.5 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the Treasury's forecast."] Hon. Members shout out, "It is the Treasury". We are the Government. Here are the Treasury Ministers. The European Union forecast is fully in line with what we are saying, the International Monetary Fund is fully in line with what we are saying—so is the Bank of England forecast. Many independent forecasts in the survey are at or around the level that we state—or, indeed, above it.
As a result of the action that the Government have taken, we have the lowest long-term interest rates for more than 30 years, 400,000 more jobs have been created, and we have cured the fiscal deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives. Rather than the old boom and bust of the Tories—[Interruption.] We have now got them recognising it, too. Rather than the old boom and bust of the Tories—I remind them that interest rates were 15 per cent. for a year or more and at 10 per cent. for four years—we have interest rates coming down. That is the difference between Labour's competence and Conservative ineptitude.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Tory legacy to people who live near the channel ports and the other ports of entry to the United Kingdom included an agreement to scrap duty-free goods, which, if implemented, would cost thousands of jobs; an agreement on indicative levels for duty-paid goods, which has generated a huge bootlegging industry; and agreements on immigration which have left many local communities struggling to support significant numbers of asylum seekers? Will he take the opportunity to tell us what progress his Government are making in clearing up this Conservative mess?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to do so. On duty free, my hon. Friend is right. As a result of what the Conservatives left us, we have to get unanimity to make any change—that was what they agreed—but, thanks to

the present Government, we are trying to achieve progress on duty free. We have invested an extra £35 million in counter-smuggling measures, including 100 extra customs officers. It is the Labour party, in the asylum and immigration Bill to be published next month, that is trying to bring about a fairer, faster and more effective system of immigration and asylum after years of incompetence by the Conservative party.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Prime Minister aware, following a written answer yesterday, that over the past five years, there has been a 600 per cent. increase in the number of nurses coming into the United Kingdom on short-term work permits of under one year? Can he explain how the Government have allowed a situation to arise where health service managers, instead of investing in British nursing, are spending £35,000 a year each on overseas nurses, who then have to return within a few months without acquiring experience or knowledge, or commitment to the health service?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can easily explain that to the hon. Gentleman. The reason for that is that, in the early and mid-1990s, the then Government cut the number of training places for nurses by 4,000. As a result of what the present Government have done, an extra 2,500 people are now in training to be nurses. Over the next three years, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, we shall have 15,000 extra nursing places. We are putting things right, but it takes three years to train a nurse, and in the meantime, of course, we must try to bridge the gap from elsewhere. We are trying to do our best to clear up the nursing shortages within the national health service, and we will get there, but it will take time, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in doing so.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the huge groundswell of opposition among Scottish business to the separatist policies of the Scottish National party? Has he seen this week's MORI opinion poll, which showed that 75 per cent. of leading Scottish firms said that independence would be bad for business? In the run-up to the Scottish elections, will he continue to explain the risk to jobs posed by the SNP, and to set out the benefits to the Scottish people of a Parliament within the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: It is very simple: SNP in, business out. That is what would happen if the SNP were elected to a Scottish Parliament. Seventy-five per cent. of the firms questioned by MORI say that the SNP's only distinctive policy would be bad for jobs and business—which is probably why Scottish National party Members do not talk about it any more. The best thing for jobs and business is devolution within the United Kingdom—not the status quo of the Tories or the separatism of the SNP.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does the Prime Minister agree with the recent article in The Observer that stated that the only relevant experience of Lord Falconer for being put in charge of the dome was having been a member of a May ball committee at Cambridge? If the Prime Minister does not agree, will he


tell the House what qualifications or experience recommended Lord Falconer for his job, apart from having shared a flat with the Prime Minister in the 1970s?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend Lord Falconer does an excellent job. That is his best qualification.

Mr. David Winnick: Has any invitation or request come from the Conservative Opposition that there should be a referendum on the question of hereditary peers? If such a referendum were to take place—perhaps it should take place—does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of people who would support retaining hereditary peers would be substantially less than even the amount of support that the Tories are getting in the opinion polls?

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Winnick: rose—

The Prime Minister: My apologies. I thought that my hon. Friend's question was good enough as it was, Madam Speaker.
It is extraordinary that the Tories are still supporting hereditary peers in this day and age. The fact is that it is wrong that hereditary peers make legislation in the other place. It is doubly wrong when those hereditary peers are given a 3:1 permanent in-built majority in one part of our legislative Chamber. It was a clear commitment in our manifesto to get rid of the hereditary peers, and that is what we shall do.

Mr. David Prior: Will the Prime Minister explain why it is that his Labour MEPs tabled a motion to censure the European Commission and then—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I did not hear the question because of the noise from Government Members. Will the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) please repeat it?

Mr. Prior: Will the Prime Minister explain why it was that his Labour MEPs tabled a motion to censure the European Commission for fraud and maladministration and then voted against it?

The Prime Minister: That is because they got the independent investigation that they wished, which was the right thing to do. I am really surprised that on this day

above all days the hon. Gentleman raises the subject of MEPs, since he has just lost two of his own and half the Tory group in Europe voted with us.

Mr. Tony Colman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the additional humanitarian aid and logistical support for the democratically elected Government of President Kabbah in Sierra Leone? Will he further join me in condemning the hypocrisy of those on the Opposition Benches who yesterday supported that policy when for the last year, they had opposed Government policy in Sierra Leone?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend lived and worked in Freetown and I acknowledge his special interest in this area. We are deeply concerned about recent events in Sierra Leone. Let me state the Government's policy very clearly again: it is to do everything that we can legitimately to help the democratically elected regime of President Kabbah. We welcome the co-operation that we have had with the Nigerian-led ECOMOG forces in trying to repel the rebels. We on the Government Benches, at any rate, believe that it is our duty to do everything that we can to help that democratically elected Government. We are proud of what we have done so far and if we can do more, we will.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Prime Minister is reported to have encouraged the enlarged British Aerospace-GEC Marconi group to continue its negotiations with its European counterparts in the restructuring of the defence companies of Europe. Given that during the Gulf war, the Belgians refused to sell us ammunition, if control of such a key UK defence asset were to cease to be in the hands of this country, would that cause the Prime Minister any concern?

The Prime Minister: I sometimes wonder whether there are any limits to the anti-Europeanism on the Opposition Benches. First, the GEC-BAe deal is one that is very welcome from the companies' commercial point of view, but I make no secret of the fact that, yes, I want to see in the longer term European defence restructuring because I believe that it is absolutely in the interests of our country that that is the case.
We are living with a different type of defence industry, where there is enormous competition from the United States. We need big European players able to compete in that league. I am not interfering with the commercial decision of those companies, but I think that defence restructuring and closer links with Europe are a perfectly natural and right consequence of building a defence industry for the future that is in Britain's interests. I do not regard the fact that our companies enter into arrangements with Europeans as a betrayal of the British national interest.

House of Lords Reform

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the White Paper that the Government are publishing today about reform of the House of Lords. Copies of the White Paper and the Bill are available in the Vote Office.
The White Paper marks another significant and vital step in the Government's overall programme to improve the institutions of this country so that they fulfil their functions in a new century with energy and effectiveness and to create a modern Parliament for a modern Britain. The White Paper makes clear how a revised second Chamber would play an important role in a new constitutional settlement.
The outlines of the Government's proposals on reform of the House of Lords have long been familiar. They are threefold: the removal of the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords; reformed arrangements for the nomination of life peers; and the establishment of a royal commission to consider longer-term reform.
The White Paper confirms that all 750 hereditary peers will cease to have an automatic right to membership of the House of Lords. It also confirms that hereditary peers will be given the right to vote in parliamentary elections and to stand as candidates for election to this House without having to disclaim their peerages.
There will be no change in the position of life peers, who will remain unable to vote in parliamentary elections and unable to disclaim their titles. There will be no change in the position of either the Law Lords or the Church of England bishops.
The White Paper also confirms the undertaking that the Government have given that if, when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, there is a consensus in favour of an amendment to allow continued transitional membership of that House to some hereditary peers, the Government are minded to support such an amendment. I must make it clear that whether the Government are able to support such an amendment depends a great deal on the extent to which normal conventions relating to the Government's legislative programme are being observed.
The Government have always made it clear that we prefer to proceed by consensus. In that spirit we are prepared to accept the proposal if, indeed, it enables reform to proceed in that way. It is not a concession to be extracted by pitched battle; indeed, pitched battle will jeopardise the proposal.
The White Paper proposes an historic change—a change that has been discussed throughout the 20th century. Today, the Bill to abolish the right of hereditary peers to be Members of Parliament—a reform first suggested in 1911—has finally been introduced by the Government so that a fundamental anachronism can be removed as we begin a new millennium.
The presence of the hereditary peerage has weakened the legitimacy and effectiveness of our second Chamber for two main reasons—because the principle is wrong and because the results are unbalanced. First, with regard to the principle, it is wrong for anyone to have an automatic right to a seat in Parliament solely on the record of his forebears. Secondly, with regard to the results,

the hereditary peerage gives one of the two major political parties in this country a 3:1 built-in majority in the House of Lords over the other. No votes by the electorate at a general election change that—the Conservative majority in that House continues untouched and untouchable.
The hereditary peerage, taken as a whole, is unrepresentative of today's Britain. It is unrepresentative economically, socially and by gender and ethnic origin. Consequently, because of the majority's predominance, the House of Lords suffers disproportionately from a political and social imbalance. That, too, is no longer acceptable.
Once the hereditary peerage is removed, the Government will move to rapid, full-scale reform of the House of Lords. There will be a period of transition, with which the White Paper deals in detail.
There have been many wild—frankly, ridiculous—assertions about the character of the transitional House. The most often reported assertion is that the House will be one created exclusively by this Government, and dependent on patronage by this Prime Minister.
The fact is that approximately 500 life peers will remain. Those life peers were appointed by eight Prime Ministers, over 40 years. Even without a single hereditary peer, there would still be a Conservative majority over the Labour party. None the less, this Government and this Prime Minister intend to reduce the Prime Minister's powers of appointment.
For the first time ever, the Prime Minister has publicly pledged himself not to interfere in the detail of nominations from other party leaders, provided that the nominations have been given a clean bill of health on propriety grounds. Moreover, for the first time ever, the Prime Minister will relinquish entirely his power to make recommendations for Cross-Bench peers. The power will be passed to an independent appointments commission.
The appointments commission will be encouraged to seek nominations from many sources, including members of the public. It will extend the range of interests and types of people represented in the House. The appointments commission will consist of members of the three main political parties and of independent members—who will form the majority, and one of whom will act as chairman.
The Government have always made it clear in our manifesto that no political party should seek to have a majority in the House of Lords. Therefore, far from seeking numbers—as we should be entitled to do without inconsistency with our manifesto—that are 40 per cent. in excess of those of the Conservative party, we plan to move only towards broad parity with the Conservative party.
We shall also ensure a fair representation of all other parties, and of the Cross Benches. The principles of broad parity and proportionate creations for the other political parties and Cross Benches should be maintained throughout the period of the transitional House.
Taken together, the proposals significantly reduce the Prime Minister's powers of patronage compared with those of all his predecessors. The result will be a better House that is more representative than the current one and better equipped to play its part in the constitution.
I should like, finally, to say a little about the longer term. The Government announced, on 14 October, that we would establish a royal commission to consider options


for longer-term reform. I am now pleased to be able to tell the House that Lord Wakeham has accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to be chairman of the royal commission. It is obviously important also that there is senior representation on the commission from this House. I am therefore pleased to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) also has agreed to serve on the commission. The remaining members will be announced in due course.
The commission's terms of reference, as stated in the White Paper, are:
Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament and taking particular account of the present nature of the constitutional settlement, including the newly devolved institutions, the impact of the Human Rights Act and developing relations with the European Union,
to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber; and
to make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of composition required to constitute a second chamber fit for that role and for those functions.
To report by 31 December 1999. 
Those terms of reference are deliberately non-prescriptive. They are intended to stimulate public debate, as well as giving the royal commission its remit.
The Government have not indicated their own preference in the White Paper, but the two final chapters set out a number of issues which the Government think the royal commission will find it useful to address. It might be useful to highlight three points. First, the terms of reference defeat the accusation that the Government's proposals for constitutional reform are piecemeal. Secondly, the terms of reference ask the royal commission to consider the role and functions of the second Chamber as a preliminary to considering its composition. Despite assertions to the contrary, the Government have always felt that wide-ranging reform of composition cannot be decided in isolation.
Thirdly, the royal commission has been given a demanding timetable. That is evidence of the Government's stated wish to maintain the momentum of reform of the second Chamber. We believe that the timetable is achievable; after all, the debate has been taking place for most of this century. There is no need to undertake extensive gathering of evidence before any work can be done on analysis of the issues. Analysis and judgment are the most important requirements. However, I make it clear that the timetable does not provide an excuse for delaying stage one reform until the commission has reported.
The Government believe that we can make no long-term progress until the hereditary peers have gone. We are keen to maintain the momentum of reform, but for momentum to be maintained the process must begin now.
The package of measures announced in the White Paper sets out the Government's approach to this radical reform, which is nevertheless a careful and considered approach, starting with the most immediate and urgent reform of the rights of the hereditary peerage while identifying the path to longer-term reform.
In May 1997, our manifesto set out in the clearest possible terms our intention to legislate to complete the long-overdue reform to remove the right to sit and vote in our legislature by inheritance. Today, we take the historic first steps to give effect to that pledge.

Dr. Liam Fox: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. I welcome the establishment of a royal commission on this matter, and welcome the choice of Lord Wakeham as the chairman, and the inclusion of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The independence of the chairman is not at all in doubt: Conservative Members remember him as one of the finest of Lady Thatcher's Chief Whips. We will make our own submission, based on the findings of Lord Mackay's commission, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, when we realized—some time before the Government—that a full-scale review of the subject was required.
Let me make it quite clear that we do not question the legitimacy of the Government carrying out their manifesto commitment to remove the voting rights of hereditary peers. We have always said that we welcome reform, if it results in the better governance of the United Kingdom, but we question the wisdom of the Government's approach and their motives. The unnecessarily bullying language of the right hon. Lady does little to assist the debate.
The Government tell us that this is a matter of urgency, and they have set a deadline of December 1999. Why, then, was a royal commission not set up 20 months ago, when the Government took office? We could now be discussing the results of a royal commission and moving to single-stage reform by consensus. We also hear today that, beyond the royal commission, there is to be yet another stage—a Joint Committee of both Houses. Perhaps the right hon. Lady can tell us how long the Government propose that that will last. It was bad enough when we had to say, "No stage one without stage two." We were not counting on stages three and four, and whatever else may follow.
The Government's clear intention seems to be to kick the whole subject into the long grass. We will go into the next general election without knowing what Parliament will look like on the other side of that election. I must congratulate Ministers on protecting themselves from the spectacle of being unable to agree among themselves on the subject, as happened on proportional representation.
Any wise reform would have allowed the royal commission genuinely to examine all the relationships within and outwith Parliament—the relationship with the Executive and with the judiciary; the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament and the balancing of their powers; and our relationship with the new bodies—and how we scrutinise legislation.
The Government's intention, revealed in the White Paper, is not to examine Parliament as a whole, but is tilted towards de facto single-chamber Government. Their methods contradict their stated aims and will bolster the Executive in the House of Commons. It is out with ermine and in with straitjackets.
The combination of the delay and the restrictive terms of reference provide the Government with what they want most: an absence of real scrutiny or an effective


check on the Executive. Despite their smokescreen, the Government will create a compliant halfway house of yes men, which they hope will last as long as possible. The Prime Minister will give up his right to appoint Cross Benchers—wow! So what?—but who will appoint the appointments commission? Perhaps the right hon. Lady can tell us.
We want a Parliament that keeps the Government in check, and we want Parliament to make our laws, not the Executive, judges or Europe. We want to strengthen the United Kingdom and ensure that power rests with the public, not with politicians. We shall work to make that come about.
In thanking the right hon. Lady for her statement, I should like to make one more comment—I hope that she does not take offence. The statement should have been made by the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Previous Prime Ministers made statements on reforms of Parliament as a matter of principle. This Prime Minister has neither understanding of, nor interest in, the House of Commons. His silence, more than anything else, tells us about the Government's motives and their contempt for the parliamentary process.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the proposals—I am glad that he was not unhappy with them. If I may begin where he ended, I am afraid that he is straightforwardly wrong. The most recent precedent on this matter was when a White Paper was presented to the House in November 1968—for some mysterious reason, the Conservative party never got round to presenting a statement on these matters while it was in power—and that statement was made by the then Leader of the House, Richard Crossman. There is a string of precedents, none of which, in the latter part of this century at any rate, suggest that a precedent has been set for the Prime Minister to make this statement.
In justice to the hon. Gentleman, it was clear that his remarks were drawn up before he read the statement—and before he realised that what the Conservative party has been spouting about the Government' s intentions is complete nonsense. Most of his criticisms of the Government's proposals were clearly unfounded. He asked one serious question, which was about the appointments commission. The appointments commission will be what one might call a "Nolanised" body, which will go through the proper process governing public appointments that is now in train for non-departmental public bodies, following what was thought necessary in the previous Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman said many other things, most of which were either inaccurate or unhelpful, but I would single out one of his remarks as symbolising the nature of his response on behalf of the Conservative party. He said that he suspected the Government's motives and that the Opposition's motives were to keep the Government in check. I am sorry, but what came through with absolute clarity from the hon. Gentleman's comments was that the Opposition's motive is to try to keep a system that gives them a 3:1 majority in the other House.

Mr. Clive Soley: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's historic and long-overdue reform and commend her on the second stage? Important as the first stage—the abolition of hereditary peers—is, the second stage, with an independent element that may include references from the public, shows that the Labour party is committed to the sort of radical reform for which this country was famous in previous centuries but not, unfortunately, in the first part of this century.

Mrs. Beckett: I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that this is an important step for this House and this Parliament. As the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, we want something better. Even the transitional House that we propose will be infinitely superior to what we have now.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I give an unqualified welcome to the Government's proposals? In a modern democracy, the accident of inheritance should not entitle a person to sit in Parliament. However, a wholly appointed upper House cannot be an attractive, long-term solution. I particularly welcome the Government's indications of speed in moving towards the second stage of reform to establish the House of Lords on a democratic basis.
I also welcome the appointment of Lord Wakeham, not only because of his qualities, but because it shows the Government's continuing commitment to cross-party discussions and participation in the reform of the constitution. That is proper and helpful. Do the Government accept that, without diminishing the legislative primacy of the House of Commons, a predominantly elected second Chamber could complement and not displace the role of this House, and could strengthen the effectiveness of Parliament's oversight of the exercise of power by government?
Do the Government also accept that a democratic second Chamber could be the best place to ensure that the special, particular, different interests of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom are properly represented in Westminster?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the welcome of his party for the way in which the Government are handling this matter, and for his recognition that we are seeking to do so on as consensual a basis as possible. He tempted me to venture into territory into which I do not intend to venture: that is, to consider what may happen in stage two and what may be discussed in the royal commission. I am not prepared to do that, because we take the view that a discussion of the functions of the second Chamber should preclude discussions of its composition and how that is arrived at.
I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that a different Chamber would be able to take account of different interests. As he will recognise, that is one of the factors that we have drawn to the royal commission's attention.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 350 years ago this year the Commonwealth


Parliament abolished the House of Lords in a one-clause Bill that said, "The House of Lords shall not sit here or purport to sit anywhere else." Compared with that, the ingenious piece of constitutional modernisation that has been announced today must have tested the ability of philosophers of the third way, spin doctors and focus groups, and of such notable intellectuals as Lord Cranborne and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. They have produced a scheme whereby, in the short term, hereditary peers will elect each other and will rub shoulders with people's peers, appointed and cleared of cronyism, who will have a job for life.
It is time that the Government made it clear that we are entitled to have an elected Parliament. We have an elected House of Commons, an elected Scottish Parliament, an elected Welsh Assembly, an elected Northern Ireland Assembly and an elected European Parliament. There are no grounds for fiddling with appointment panels to deal with cronyism or whatever. As the proposal that my right hon. Friend has announced was not put to the electorate or to the Labour conference, and was not discussed with Labour Members of Parliament, there must be a free vote at every stage during the passage of the legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to have to say that although I had hoped readily to agree with my right hon. Friend on this matter, I cannot do so. He is incorrect: no one will get a job for life, at least not in this legislature. That is the point of our proposals.
In common with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), my right hon. Friend attempted to lead me into a discussion about what should happen in stage two. I have much respect for my right hon. Friend, especially for his excellent analogy which completely undermined the case made in the past by Conservative Members about the hereditary principle. He said that if one went to the airport and was told that the pilot did not have a licence but his grandfather did, one would not get on the plane. That is an admirably clear and succinct demolition of the hereditary principle.
I must tell my right hon. Friend, however, that if one factor has maintained the existence of the hereditary principle in our legislature throughout this century—certainly for the last 87 years—it is the frequency of the occasions on which all who wished for change became bogged down in the form that such change should take, rather than dealing with first principles first. The Government have every intention of doing that, and I hope and expect that every Labour Member will support us.

Sir Archie Hamilton: When the Government give evidence to the Wakeham commission, what view will they express on the delicate constitutional balance between the House of Commons and the second Chamber? Will they want the powers of the second Chamber to be increased or decreased relative to those of this House, or left the same—or have the Government not made up their mind? Are they embarking on one stage of constitutional reform without thinking their way to the next?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that his was yet another intervention bearing all the hallmarks of having been prepared with no prior study of what the Government propose.
The Government, as such, do not intend to give evidence to the commission, although the political parties are free to do so, and perhaps they will. As for the powers of the replacement Chamber, they would be a matter for the commission to consider. The right hon. Gentleman may, however, recall what I said in my statement, which I hope will be welcomed literally on all sides of the House. I said that, according to the Government's view and the remit of the royal commission, the House of Commons will be the pre-eminent Chamber of our legislature.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend is right to deal with the powers as well as the composition of the House of Lords. Is she aware that the more defensible the composition of the House of Lords is, the more it will wish to use the powers that it already has, let alone any increased powers that may be given to it? What proposals has my right hon. Friend to limit its powers during the first stage of the operation, which may last some time?

Mrs. Beckett: We do not propose to change the de facto powers that currently exist, but we have made it plain, as my right hon. Friend recognises—I am grateful to him for his welcome—that the royal commission and, indeed, the House of Commons will have to consider what the balance of power should be. We are clear about the fact that this Chamber must be pre-eminent, and that must underlie all the issues that are considered.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. Lady admit that what she has said reveals that the Government embarked on the matter with no policy at all on the second Chamber, still have no policy at all and are trying to make a virtue of the fact? They think that a royal commission might come up with a policy, but not so quickly as to interfere with their legislative timetable for the remainder of the current Parliament.
Will the right hon. Lady turn her attention to what has already been said by her right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about the position of this Parliament, to which we have all been elected, and the scrutiny to which this Government will be subjected? If I have understood correctly, the Blair Government are likely to remain subject to scrutiny by perhaps 91 hereditary peers—if they do not double-cross my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cranborne—by certain life peers, who may or may not be peers for life when my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Wakeham has reported, by the Lords spiritual and the Law Lords, and by whatever new people the Prime Minister still intends to appoint to swell the ranks of his supporters in the other place? That is not even equivalent to "no policy"; it is unacceptable.
As the Government are in this situation, will they now introduce a Bill defining the powers of the second Chamber as subordinate to this Chamber, and reflecting what both the right hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said about the need for the large elected element that we all know it will have to have? Will they allow the lightest whipping, and enable Parliament to decide as rapidly as possible what scrutiny there should be in the second Chamber? The Government propose to establish no sensible scrutiny at all.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that that intervention does not do justice to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's


reputation in the House. Like those of many others, his questions bear all the signs of having been baked in advance. He accused the Government of having no policy at all. That is plainly nonsense. He fell into the same trap as the hon. Member for Woodspring.
The Conservative party does not seem to be able to make up its mind whether the Government are going too fast or too slowly on the matter. When it did not know that we were going to set a term date of a year for the royal commission, it accused us of dragging out that procedure. Incidentally, what a ridiculous accusation Conservative Members made that we were kicking the matter into the long grass. In fact, we are proceeding much more quickly in studying how we proceed towards stage two than most hon. Members had anticipated. It is evident that that was not anticipated by Conservative Members and it makes most of their contributions more than a little irrelevant.
On the issue of new appointments and so on, again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is stuck in the mindset of the Conservative party in assuming that we would try to distort placements to that House in the way that has been done in the past. I remind him that there will still be 500 Members of another place, which seems an entirely adequate size of House to provide scrutiny.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government proposal is totally unacceptable. I will tell him what is totally unacceptable. What is totally unacceptable is that, in this day and age, the House of Lords should have in it about 1,300 Members, 750 of whom can be there without having done anything worthy of note and give his party a 3:1 majority. We are not going to allow that arrangement to continue.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Lloyd George would have found amusing the enthusiasm of Conservative Front Benchers for reform, after 100 years.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should guard against the second Chamber, or senate, becoming a retirement home for politicians who are no longer active politicians—even those who might be appointed at an early age, but who get jobs for life, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said? Would she be sympathetic to having a fixed term for those appointments, or a retirement age, to prevent that danger?

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's point about the enthusiasm of the Conservative party. Today, it is showing exactly the same enthusiasm for House of Lords reform that it has shown in the past. It would like to talk about it. We have been talking about it for 87 years precisely because the Conservative party has never managed to think of anything that would suit it better than the current arrangement.
My hon. Friend asks me whether we should consider a fixed term of appointment. I make the following comment genuinely, not to curtail debate: there will be plenty of opportunity for debate on that matter and on any alternatives that may come forward in stage two. However, I counsel my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, the House not to get bogged down in what happens in stage two.

Dr. Fox: That gives the game away.

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it does give the game away as to the tactics of the Conservative party. It has been discussing stage two for 87 years. It is time to get rid of stage one.

Sir Peter Emery: As the right hon. Lady said, the last statement on Lords reform by a Leader of the House was made by Mr. Crossman, so she might care to recall what happened to him and to that statement. She talks about this House being the pre-eminent Chamber and about the recommendations on the role and functions of a second Chamber.
This House can be pre-eminent although considerable powers—much greater powers than the second Chamber has at the moment; powers perhaps to clip the wings of the Prime Minister—may be recommended for that second Chamber. Is the right hon. Lady saying that those powers would be acceptable to the Government if they were recommended? We do not want that to be subject to a wager, although the chairman of the commission is, I believe, chairman of the Tote.

Mrs. Beckett: I am, indeed, mindful of what happened to Richard Crossman: he got bogged down in stage two. Consequently, stage one was never achieved. It is not a precedent that I have any intention of following.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman—again, he tempts me on to precisely this territory—talks about the second Chamber's role and functions, bearing in mind that the House of Commons must remain pre-eminent, and he then goes on to talk about whether the Government will consider things that will, in his words, "clip the wings" of the Prime Minister. I simply say that the issue of role and functions—and, yes, that includes the powers—is one that the royal commission will consider, on which it will recommend and on which, ultimately, the House will take a view. One of the most noticeable things throughout the exchange so far has been that, despite all the absolute nonsense, and the very unpleasant nonsense, that has been said—not by the right hon. Gentleman but by others on the Opposition Benches—about the Prime Minister's unfettered use of patronage and power, not one Opposition Member has felt able to accept or to welcome the fact that this Prime Minister, unprecedentedly, is diminishing the Prime Minister's power of patronage. That is something that no Tory Prime Minister in history has ever even contemplated.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the late Dick Crossman's much put upon and much abused Parliamentary Private Secretary, I wish my right hon. Friend tons of luck, because she will need every ounce of it in this minefield. Is the appointments commission likely to show the same wisdom as the panel brought into being by the Labour party in choosing candidates for the Holyrood Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: It is, of course, an article of faith that all panels set up by the Labour party in government, or as a matter party machinery, show wisdom.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to 350 years ago. It might be wise for this Parliament to bear in mind that we may propose changes that ultimately the people will regret. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House


to the fact that she refers to three main parties and forgets that there are other parties in the House, some of which have no representation in the regions, and particularly in Northern Ireland. None of the three main parties is prepared to stand for election there. Surely a large majority Government should not be afraid of minority representation.

Mrs. Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will have noticed, I hope, that although I referred to representatives from the three main parties, on a number of occasions in the statement I also mentioned that it is the Government's intention to bear in mind the wish to see fair representation for all parties in Britain.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend noticed from the exchanges that have taken place already, especially the contributions of Opposition Members, that if they are given an inch, they want a mile? My right hon. Friend, mistakenly in my view, has given them the chairmanship of the royal commission, and to a man who has a string of jobs already, yet the Tories are still as mad as a hatter. Why does not she think in terms of the third way? We have a Parliament for Scotland, we will have a Welsh Assembly and another one in Northern Ireland, and, in a few years' time, there will be one in every region in England. Why on earth do we need a second Chamber at all? Adopt the third way and get rid of it.

Mrs. Beckett: I have no doubt that, should my hon. Friend catch your eye, Madam Speaker, he will have the opportunity to pursue that idea at some length. With regard to Lord Wakeham taking the chair of the royal commission, I simply say that he has a long and distinguished career, including as one of my predecessors in the House, although it came as a slight surprise to hear the hon. Member for Woodspring say that he showed—what was it?—independence as Chief Whip. A variety of qualities are qualifications for the role of Chief Whip, but I am not sure that that has ever been regarded as one of them. However, I take it on board.

Mr. Eric Forth: As the main criticisms that the Government are making of the House of Lords appear to be that it is undemocratic, unrepresentative and unaccountable, can the Leader of the House guarantee that at the end of the process, the second Chamber will emerge as democratic, representative and accountable?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman identifies our case accurately. The House of Lords is uniquely undemocratic, unrepresentative and unaccountable. Even in the transitional stage, what replaces it will be better.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a good day for democracy, reaffirming to anyone who may have been in doubt that this is a radical Government? She is right to adopt a two-stage process and not to be tempted by those from either side of the House who want to get involved in the minutiae of what is to follow. There will be a spring in

my step—I am sure that many of my hon. Friends share my feelings—when I walk through the Lobby to vote for the Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that his view will be shared.

Mr. Alex Salmond: May we start from the premise that no rational person would defend hereditary seats in the House of Lords? [Interruption.] I said no rational person. Does the Leader of the House accept that the imbalanced proposals for the transitional phase look like a pig's breakfast? Will the royal commission properly consider the option of no second Chamber and the adoption of pre-legislative scrutiny in the procedures of this Chamber? That is how the Scottish Parliament will work, without the need for a second Chamber. Will the Leader of the House accept as a fundamental principle that if there is to be a second Chamber, the only way for it to be representative is for it to be elected? Finally, what self-respecting, elected, full-time Member of the Scottish Parliament would consider coming down to London on day trips if the second Chamber were still nominated and full of 500 cronies?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be no second Chamber. That is not the Government's view. He appears to be suggesting that, whether it is a transitional House or a different form of second Chamber, no one from the Scottish National party would wish to serve in the upper House. That is a matter for his party. He also talked about the nature of the transitional House. It is my strong view that we would probably never get to the transitional House if we spent all our time wrangling about its ideal form. We hope and intend that the transitional House will not last for long, so the issue is less important. It will certainly be better than what precedes it, but it is not so important if it is not in what might be considered an ideal form. I cannot repeat too often that the reason why we still have a second Chamber numbering 1,300 or more Members when the issue has been under discussion for 87 years is that those who believe that the current situation is unacceptable have always been more interested in talking about what we should ideally have in its place rather than embarking on the process of reform. We shall never have a proper debate about how a reformed second Chamber should be until we begin to take steps on the existing Chamber.

Jacqui Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the many disadvantages of the hereditary principle is that it has created a significant gender imbalance in the second Chamber, where only 8 per cent. of peers are women? I do not want to get involved in the minutiae of the second phase. The removal of the hereditary peers alone will go some way towards righting that gender imbalance, but it is also important that the appointments commission and the royal commission consider ways of ensuring gender balance in the second Chamber.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. That brings us back to the effects of having a hereditary qualification for a seat in the legislature. The system has no regard for talent. It is not even the most interested or the most


qualified member of an eligible family who is entitled to a seat, but in most cases it is the first-born male. My hon. Friend is right that that results in a House that is out of touch with today's world. I have no doubt that that will be taken into account.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: How can the right hon. Lady argue that the Government's approach to constitutional reform is anything other than piecemeal, given that she has just said that the position of the Law Lords and the Church of England bishops will not be considered in the reform? If the Government truly are looking at the constitution as a whole, why does the royal commission not have the power to consider the position of the Law Lords and the Church of England bishops?

Mrs. Beckett: That is not a matter that will be dealt with in stage one. The difficulty is that Conservative Members have certain lines that they like to use, irrespective of whether they have become irrelevant. It is clear that, although we are proceeding step by step and piece by piece, the reform is not piecemeal: it is an overarching programme of reform in which one part can intermesh with others.
The issue of the existence and the role of the Law Lords is, at least in part, also a matter for the judiciary and the judicial system. It was not thought sensible, even in the transitional House, to take steps to change that role. Similarly, we do not propose any change in the role of bishops in the transitional House. I have no doubt that if Conservative Members think that changes should be made in the transitional House, they will say so. However, we believe that it is a matter for stage two.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We must now move on to the main business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We shall be returning to the matter many times over the next few months. Fear not—I shall remember those hon. Members who have not had an opportunity to ask a question today.

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

[(Clauses 1 to 4 and Schedule 1 and 2)]

Further considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order [15 December] [Progress, 19 January].

[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Mr. Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Have you received a request from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) to come here to correct the record from yesterday? During debate, it was suggested that the decision to abolish the Greater London council did not form part of the 1983 Conservative manifesto. I have read the 1983 manifesto, and it is perfectly clear that the proposal was included in it, so it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to come to the Chamber to apologise.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for me, but a matter for debate. I have received no information of the sort the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Clause 2

MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 2, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—
'(a) begin on the first Monday in July following the ordinary election; and'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 70, in page 2, line 25, leave out 'second'.
No. 65, in page 2, line 25, after first 'day', insert 'two months'.
No. 71, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'second'.
No. 66, in page 2, line 28, after first 'day', insert two months'.
No. 32, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 24 to 28.

Mr. Burstow: This debate should be relatively short and centre on the term of office of the mayor and the members of the assembly. The group of amendments raises issues on which we should like to probe the Government so as to ensure that we clearly understand their thinking on how those matters will operate. The effect of the amendments would be to provide for a transition period, from the time when the election of the mayor and the members of the assembly takes place to the time that they assume their responsibilities.
The amendments would also remove the Secretary of State's power to set the date on which the authority comes into being and starts to operate. The Bill as it stands provides for the Secretary of State, in effect, to act as mayor of London for about a month, during April, in the run-up to the elections for the Greater London authority,


and we do not believe that the Secretary of State should also have the power to change the start date of the authority. That is an unnecessary power and our amendments, if accepted, would make it clear that the assembly would commence its business and the mayor would start to act from July, so there would be no need for the Secretary of State to become involved.
I seek clarification on how Ministers envisage acting during the shadow period, when the new authority is in place but the members of that authority have not been elected. As we understand it, the authority will operate from 1 April. We must be clear about exactly how Ministers will discharge their powers on behalf of Londoners during that period. That is why we have tabled the amendments. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on how Ministers will be additionally accountable to London during that time and how we can ensure that we have the benefit of a transition period in future elections.
It has been said on several occasions that the Greater London authority presents an opportunity to experiment, innovate and try new methods of operation. The Liberal Democrats are entirely in favour of such experimentation, and we invite the Government to consider a further innovation in the workings of the GLA. Given that the legislation clearly separates the executive and scrutiny roles and that newly elected mayors will face a mammoth task, we believe that the legislation should provide a period of transition from a sitting mayor to a new incumbent mayor following an election to allow the latter to prepare for the task ahead.
The traditional model in general elections in this country, whereby an election is held and a losing Prime Minister must vacate his offices almost the same day, is ineffective and inefficient in the context of this institution. Yesterday, Ministers recognised correctly that we must examine each institution and construct it in a manner that is appropriate to the task that it performs. In this case, we believe that the Government should adopt that innovation.
The amendments seek to remove the power of the Secretary of State to decide the assembly's first meeting date and to put a clear date for that meeting in the Bill.

Mr. Ottaway: I speak to the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and myself, which are similar in intent to those tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
It is clear that several lesser appointments will be made in establishing the authority—I do not wish to demean those who will ultimately fill those appointments; they are part of the new assembly's essential machinery. The key appointments will not be made until after the elections. Like the Liberal Democrats, we believe that a time interval should be permitted to allow the mayor and his advisers to make those appointments in their own time. For that reason, we think that a two-month delay in commencing the mayor's term of office would benefit the appointment process. We are not alone in that view. A few weeks ago, the Evening Standard stated:
There are genuine practical objections to an immediate handover, when the entire administrative structure to support the Mayoralty is being created from scratch.
For once, the Conservative party and the Evening Standard are in accord. That newspaper has not supported us for many years and I am pleased that it is beginning to come around to our point of view.
I do not advocate the mooted delay of several months to allow the Government to put in place their public-private partnership for London Underground before the mayor takes office. I think that that transitional stage is a disaster waiting to happen, and it will no doubt form the basis of much debate in Committee. I do not think that the mayor's term of office should be delayed at the Government's convenience. It should be for the convenience and benefit of Londoners. Under the circumstances, a two-month interregnum between the election and the commencement of the term of office seems right and appropriate.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): The Government share the belief of the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that there should be a breathing space between the mayor and the assembly being elected and taking up the duties that the people of London will have placed on them by virtue of electing them. I am happy to consider the hon. Gentlemen's proposals before the Bill reaches its later stages.
The assembly will have direct responsibilities for appointing senior officials because it will be necessary to create an executive. It is proposed that there should be a shadow secretariat. I use that term in its widest sense. There will also be a need for the mayor to make appointments to the many executive committees that will be directly responsible to him. We simply need to consider the time that should elapse between the election of the mayor and the assembly and the commencement of their duties.
I turn now to amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 70. It is clear that there needs to be a pause because, as Government Members have made abundantly clear, the Bill proposes a new form of city-wide government, and the mayor and assembly will be responsible for designing a strategy to improve the quality of life in London by improving its transport and dealing with many of the other issues that we have already discussed. However, such a pause will be necessary only after the first election, which will take place in May 2000.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made a point about whether there would be additional ministerial responsibilities during that interregnum.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is interesting that the Minister says that a pause will be necessary only after the first election because if there were a change of mayor, the new mayor would want to make appointments. He or she would not be able to do so before the election, so the same problem would emerge. The secretariat would remain the same, but the advisers appointed by the mayor would surely change and there would need to be time to make that change.

Ms Jackson: I find the hon. Lady's intervention bemusing. There is no pause in central Government after an election. There is no pause in local government after an election. The business that is the responsibility of local authorities and central Government goes on whether or not the political power in local authorities or the party in Government changes. The necessary structures that facilitate the work of political representatives sent to those offices by the will of the people support and sustain day-to-day business.

Mrs. Lait: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I want to tease out this issue. We are discussing a unique


institution in which we are separating the executive from the legislature. In a parallel institution, the American presidency—a different institution from the one that I cited last night—there is a delay of two or three months while the new President puts in place the people that he has nominated. I view the role of the mayor, as part of the executive, as similar to that of the American President, so a new mayor would need time to make appointments.

Ms Jackson: I can only ask the hon. Lady to consider the lack of similarity between our proposals and the office of President of the United States. That point was made last night when we were debating another amendment. We are not creating a similar institution, and the powers of the mayor and the assembly are not the same as those of the President of the United States.
4.30 pm
The country does not grind to a halt after an election. The governance of the country is seamless. The day after a general election, there is no apparent change for the people of this country. The same is true in respect of local authorities. The kind of changes to which the hon. Lady is referring—changes of direction and of policy, very often coloured by political perspectives—are the responsibility of the people elected to high office, whether they be the Prime Minister, the leader of a local authority or, in this instance, the mayor, but the day-to-day business does not change.
I entirely understand that the introduction of the changes to which the hon. Lady refers takes time, but there is no necessity for an artificial break between election and the taking on of responsibilities, other than in the original, innovative, first-time-ever election for this particular form of city-wide government.

Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister clarify something that she said at the outset? She suggested that she would be willing to reflect further on the matter. They are not exactly the words that she used, but the implication was that this was an issue to which the Government were willing to give further thought. Perhaps I have leapt in too soon and she was going to say exactly to what the Government were going to give further thought, but, having heard the exchanges on this particular point, it appears that the substance of the amendment—the issue of transition—is not one about which the Government are ready to think again. Will the Minister give us a little more comfort and say that it is still an issue open to debate and further consideration?

Ms Jackson: I am sorry if I have not made the position clear to the hon. Gentleman. There is undoubtedly a meeting of minds between us on the fact that there should indeed be a period between the declaration of the results of the first-ever election of a mayor and an assembly and their taking on their full responsibilities. There should of course be such a period for the reasons that I have already touched on—the appointing of senior officials, the necessity for the mayor to appoint chairmen to the committees that are directly accountable to him, and, to repeat a phrase that I have already used, the actual creation of the necessary systems to ensure that the mayor

and the assembly will be able to carry out the duties placed on them thanks to their election to high office by the people of London.
The clear difference of opinion arises over whether that should be a permanent fixture at every election after the first. We are prepared to take away and consider proposals about the length of time between the election result being declared and the mayor and the assembly fully taking on their responsibilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard that, will withdraw the amendment so that we can return to the issue. However, the Government are not prepared to accept that the proposed period between the election result and the mayor and assembly being fully in place should be a fixture in perpetuity at future elections of the mayor and assembly for London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has made that very clear, and the Committee is grateful. I must press her on a linked point in order to understand the first part of what she said, which was about the first time around. Is she now also saying that the Government are willing to accept that for the first time around—we shall leave future elections to be dealt with later—the GLA will come into existence after the elections rather than before, so that the sequence will be elections followed by start date? If that is the case, it is a very helpful and welcome statement.

Ms Jackson: I am delighted to be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman with a categorical and enthusiastic yes. There will be no mayor, no assembly and no Greater London authority until the election results have been declared. In the light of that, I trust that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will withdraw the amendment relating to the time between the election result being declared and the mayor and the assembly having the reins firmly in their hands, so that we can return to the issue later. The Government believe that that is necessary, but would want to examine it in more detail.
I hope, too, that amendments Nos. 70, 65, 71 and 66 will not be pressed. We have no intention of returning to them, for the reasons that I have already given.
Amendment No. 32 would remove clause 3(6). I would be grateful if it were not moved, so that we can return to the issue on Report. I shall be perfectly honest: I would require the expertise of parliamentary counsel because it is possible that clause 3(6) is unnecessary. I hope that both the hon. Members for Croydon, South and for Sutton and Cheam will accept the proposal that I have put to them.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister made it crystal clear in the first 30 seconds of her speech that she was making a concession. Willingly, we shall not press our amendments.

Mr. Edward Davey: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Paul Burstow—sorry, Mr. Davey.

Mr. Davey: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and I looked too much alike.
The Minister has taken an important initiative by showing that the Government are prepared to listen.

Ms Glenda Jackson: We are always prepared to listen.

Mr. Davey: The Minister says that this is not the first time that the Government have shown that they are prepared to listen. However, it is certainly the first time in this Committee that we have seen signs that they are prepared to discuss matters outside the Committee and consider ways in which, together, we may improve the Bill, on a joint and consensual basis, to paraphrase their words in the Green Paper. We welcome that, and are certainly willing to withdraw the amendment—and, later, not move amendment No. 32.
I would, however, like to press the Minister on one point. She says that she agrees with ourselves and the Conservatives that it will take time to set up the authority and make all the appointments following the elections. Will she say on which date she thinks the authority will be established following the elections? I would be grateful if she intervened now. Given that she has not, I hope that we can establish that point very quickly. It would be helpful to future proceedings in Committee. Although we may need to decide later how that date is incorporated in the Bill, the information should be put in the public domain as soon as possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member who moved the amendment must withdraw it.

Mr. Burstow: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I anticipate that this debate will be no longer than the previous one. We shall make good progress on this, as on other issues.
We shall vote against clause 2 standing part of the Bill not because there has been no welcome concession from the Minister—for which we are glad—but because the clause deals with some of the matters with which we have just disagreed.
Ministers and the Committee know that we have accepted that the referendum decided certain things, such as the creation of the Greater London authority, of which we have always been in favour; that there should be a mayor, which we have always accepted; and that there should be an assembly, for which we have always argued. We have some problem not with the superstructure, but with the infrastructure. We had three objections and now we have two; we are making good progress.
We canvassed yesterday on the first of our objections—the size and make-up of the assembly. I shall not cover the ground again. We have a difference of view about that and we are on the record as to what that is. It would be illogical and inconsistent for us, having said yesterday that we did not think that things should be like this, to vote today that things should be as stated in clause 2.
Secondly—again, I shall not elaborate—we said yesterday that we preferred another electoral system. We had a good, interesting debate last night about electoral systems. I believe that there was acceptance across the Committee that appropriate systems must be chosen for the body concerned. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) made that point, perfectly reasonably, as did the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton).
Nevertheless, there is a difference of view between us. We have a preferred system; the Government have chosen their system. That is a perfectly honourable position, but there has not, on this issue, been the consensus that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that we were in danger of achieving more often than I had expected.
Thirdly, before we started to debate the Bill this afternoon there was a disagreement about the start date, but we have made progress on that, for which we are grateful. We have one agreement and two matters on which we have so far disagreed—it is two to one against. On that basis, subject to any other hon. Member wishing to speak, we ask the Committee to vote that clause 2 does not stand part of the Bill, so that we may come back and get it into a shape that is more to our liking.
I anticipate that we may not win this time, but Liberal Democrat Members are ever hopeful. Given that, yesterday, we saw the great Labour-Conservative coalition working against us—the most recent example—we believe that we can continue to make progress and gradually break down the barriers of the old, tribal political divides. We look forward to that, but it does not mean that we cannot have the odd distinction of view and the odd difference of opinion. They are honourable distinctions, and soon I shall ask that the Committee be allowed to decide on them.

Mr. Ottaway: The Conservative party was in the same Lobby as the Labour party last night. We were united in our opposition to proportional representation as a method of election—

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is off message again.

Mr. Ottaway: It will be obvious from yesterday's debates that we disagree with the Government on several fundamental issues in clause 2. In the circumstances, we wish to divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had some very interesting debates on clause 2. We have considered the titles of the mayor and assembly; a proposal for the direct election of a deputy mayor; the size and composition of the assembly; and a range of alternative—and, in some cases, mutually incompatible—voting systems, all proposed by the Liberal Democrats, plus another variation proposed by the Conservatives.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister, as so often in life, tells the truth but not all the truth. Those systems were indeed all proposed by us but, as I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to concede in his usual generous spirit, they were proposed as alternatives, in descending order of preference.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman stresses that they were presented as alternatives, in descending order of preference, but most hon. Members still have no idea which is the preference of the Liberal Democrat party.
We have also considered the timing and implementation of our proposals. We have agreed to give further consideration to the timing of the full implementation of the new Greater London authority at its first appearance. We have said that, at future elections, the traditional British system whereby the Government change very quickly without a period of transition will prevail, but in the initial stages it is right that there should be an opportunity for the new authority to be set up. We have listened to the views expressed and we shall come back with revised proposals, as we have undertaken to do.

Mr. Hughes: We are grateful. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Transport in London, a question, and then the nature of the debate did not afford her the chance to reply. May I suggest that the beginning of July 2000 might be a nice date to start the GLA working?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should have contained himself. I was about to respond to the point that his hon. Friend had made, to make it clear that, as yet, we have no clear predisposition as to the precise date, but we have listened to the views expressed by hon. Members in meetings outside the House and in today's debate, and we shall let the House know our conclusions in due course.
The Government have listened but, sadly, the opposition parties have not. The Liberal Democrats intend to divide on the clause despite the clear indications that were given yesterday evening when their proposals were the subject of Divisions. They might note, given the particular amendments to which they are still partial, that the Government majority on a Division yesterday evening on an amendment was 224, followed by one of 417. I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats appear not to have listened to the clear will of the Committee.
4.45 pm
The Opposition continue to peddle the concept of a deputy mayor. Having read a recent article written by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he explored matters relating to London government and the future of the Greater London authority and all the things that the Conservative party apparently thinks are important, it was fascinating to note that there was no mention of a deputy mayor. Either the right hon. Gentleman is not on message or the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is not.
We do not regard the position of either of the opposition parties on these issues as consistent and effective. Given the decisions that were taken following Divisions last night, I have already given a clear indication of the preference of the Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the Government's proposition that clause 2, as presented, stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 308, Noes 167.

Division No.40]
[4.46 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dawson, Hilton


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atherton, Ms Candy
Denham, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Austin, John
Dismore, Andrew


Banks, Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Barron, Kevin
Donohoe, Brian H


Bayley, Hugh
Doran, Frank


Begg, Miss Anne
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Drew, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Drown, Ms Julia


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Berry, Roger
Edwards, Huw


Best, Harold
Efford, Clive


Betts, Clive
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blackman, Liz
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Borrow, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Flint, Caroline


Bradshaw, Ben
Flynn, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Follett, Barbara


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Gerrard, Neil


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godsiff, Roger


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cooper, Yvette
Hoey, Kate



Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr Kim



Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Darvill, Keith
Ingram, Adam






Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Dawn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Radice, Giles


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rammell, Bill


Kingham, Ms Tess
Raynsford, Nick



Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Livingstone, Ken
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Salter, Martin


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAllion, John
Sawford, Phil


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCabe, Steve
Shaw, Jonathan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Shipley, Ms Debra


McDonnell, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McFall, John
Singh, Marsha


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Skinner, Dennis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Soley, Clive


McWalter, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWilliam, John
Speller, John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marek, Dr John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Merron, Gillian
Stringer, Graham


Michael, Alun
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Swinney, John


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Todd, Mark


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Touhig, Don


Mountford, Kali
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Mudie, George
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mullin, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Walley, Ms Joan


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Wareing, Robert N





Watts, David
Wise, Audrey


White, Brian
Wood, Mike


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Woolas, Phil


Wicks, Malcolm
Wray, James


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wills, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. David Hanson and


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Mr. Keith Hill.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Green, Damian


Allan, Richard
Greenway, John


Amess, David
Grieve, Dominic


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hague, Rt Hon William


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hammond, Philip


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hawkins, Nick


Baker, Norman
Hayes, John


Baldry, Tony
Heald, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Horam, John



Beresford, Sir Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brake, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brand, Dr Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey 


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Key, Robert


Burnett, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burns, Simon
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burstow, Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Cable, Dr Vincent
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cash, William
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lansley, Andrew



Letwin, Oliver


Chidgey, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chope, Christopher
Lidington, David


Clappison, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Loughton, Tim


Collins, Tim
Luff, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cotter, Brian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Major, Rt Hon John


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maples, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Evans, Nigel
May, Mrs Theresa


Faber, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fallon, Michael
Moore, Michael


Flight, Howard
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford
Norman, Archie


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Oaten, Mark


Foster, Don (Bath)
Öpik, Lembit


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Paterson, Owen


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Randall, John


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John



Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Rendel, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Gorrie, Donald
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gray, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)






Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Thompson, William


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Townend, John


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tredinnick, David


Sanders, Adrian
Trend, Michael


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyler, Paul


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tyrie, Andrew


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wallace, James


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Walter, Robert


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wardle, Charles


Spicer, Sir Michael
Webb, Steve


Spring, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Wilkinson, John


Stunell, Andrew
Willis, Phil


Swayne, Desmond
Wilshire, David


Syms, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Sir David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

TIMING OF ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 2 to 6.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'on' to end of line 3 and insert
'the first Thursday in May in the year following the Royal Assent of this Act'.
No. 77, in page 3, leave out lines 4 to 6.
No. 67, in page 3, line 6, at end insert—
', such a poll not to take place more than four years after the previous election.'.
No. 6, in page 3, line 7, after '(3)', insert—
'The poll of the first ordinary election shall be held on 4th May 2000 and'.
No. 78, in page 3, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'subject' and insert 'Subsection (3) above is'.

Mr. Ottaway: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 67. For the sake of convenience, I shall deal first with amendment No. 6, which would provide that the date of the first election is stated in the Bill. We believe that strongly.
5 pm
The Minister and his boss have proudly proclaimed that the first election will take place on 4 May 2000. I know that they are holding back a lot—not only reserve powers, but announcements to be made in orders—but that is one date that they do not have to hold back, because they have already announced it. We believe that the date should be in the Bill, if only to give some sense to amendments Nos. 5 and 67.
Amendment No. 5 addresses the point that the Secretary of State has reserve powers to announce when the second and third ordinary elections will take place.

The Conservative party is deeply suspicious that that is not wholly unconnected with the declared intention in the local government White Paper to move the London boroughs to annual, or perhaps biennial, elections.
The Conservative party is happy with the present timetable for London elections—there is no need to fiddle with the dates—and we are happy for elections to take place once every four years. The Government want to move the dates of the London borough elections to try to increase turnout—that is a good intention—but there is absolutely no evidence that annual elections increase turnout. All the signs are that it makes no difference.
For one reason or another, elections regularly take place in May and missing the odd year does not seem to make much difference. The public will turn out if they want to, regardless of whether elections are annual or every four years.
Amendment No. 67 provides that, if we are unsuccessful with amendments Nos. 5 and 6 and the Secretary of State retains the power to hold the elections at his discretion, under any circumstance the term for the new authority should be not more than four years. A five or six-year term would not be acceptable.
There could be indefinite suspension of elections under the Bill. Although I do not believe for a moment that that is in the Government's mind, it would be safer, for clarity's sake, to confirm that no term could be more than four years. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendments.

Mr. Tom Brake: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 31, 77 and 78.
I am surprised that the Government have made it necessary for the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition to table amendments on the timing of the elections. All hon. Members are agreed that there will be an election for the Greater London authority, but the date on which it will be held is missing from the Bill—unless we count the powers of the Secretary of State, who has infiltrated every nook and cranny of the Bill, to select a date of his choosing. Those powers also apply to second and third elections.
That leaves the process open to gerrymandering. We are considering the use of independent commissions to establish electoral structures and dates for elections, and the Government should consider that in this case. We need a clear steer on when the election will be held. We recognise that unforeseen circumstances may preclude putting a specific date in the Bill, but it most certainly should not be within the power of the Secretary of State to decide whether the election takes place at all. I should be grateful if the Minister responded to that point. What happens if, before the elections to the GLA are held, the Government change and the new Secretary of State is not favourable towards the establishment of a GLA? Will the Bill allow the Secretary of State to decide never to hold elections?
I hope that the Government agree that this serious point requires consideration and that our concerns are valid. I look forward to a constructive response from the Minister.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I very much welcome the two amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South


(Mr. Ottaway). The amendments make an extremely important point—they show that the Government's attitude towards democratic elections is that they can be moveable feasts at the behest of the Secretary of State's diktat. That is not how the electorate want electoral dates to be set. The first election for the Greater London authority should be clearly stated in the Bill so that there is no possibility whatever of malpractice by the Government.
If the Government cannot impose a candidate who is acceptable to the Labour party leadership within the allotted time, they might wish to postpone the first election. If they decide that the election campaign has not been sufficiently well prepared, or if other extraneous circumstances that we cannot anticipate occur, the Government might change the date of the first election. Many are the occasions on which a date quoted in Hansard has, for various reasons, not been upheld, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends are correct to insist in amendment No. 6 that the first date should be in the Bill—as, too, does the Liberal Democrat party in its amendments.
The election to the Greater London authority should not be affected by notional plans for the reform of local government in London. Let us at least get the format for the GLA right and the timetable for elections established in an immutable way, with which the Secretary of State cannot interfere, before we start to reform local government. The electorate wants the first elections to take place, as we have been promised, on 4 May 2000 and the second and third elections to take place four years thereafter. The Bill should not empower the Secretary of State to change the anticipated dates of those elections.
I hope that the House will be rigorous in imposing its view on this matter, because once we allow the timing of the elections to be subject to the Secretary of State's discretion, the matter is likely to become party political rather than constitutional. We must safeguard the democratic interests of Londoners.

Mr. Edward Davey: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but the comments of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) have tempted me to do so. He raised an important point, which the House should consider: why are the Government not prepared to state in the Bill the date of the first elections? The Minister must answer that question if he is to convince the Committee. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that it may be because of the internal machinations of the London Labour party, which has only just managed to agree on the selection process for its candidates. Those may be subject to review—we shall have to wait and see.

Mr. Mike Gapes: As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the selection process, can he tell me who the Liberal Democrat candidate will be?

Mr. Davey: Details of our selection process have been published, and we are now approving candidates. There have been no internal squabbles in our party about the process. It is open and above board and follows democratic procedures. If the hon. Member for Croydon,

South (Mr. Ottaway) wants to intervene, I am sure that he can explain that his party's selection process is also democratic and open.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman tempts me. Apparently, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party is at this moment resigning from office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us on the method of election for that post.

Mr. Davey: I have no knowledge of that. If it were true, any election would be open and democratic, as for many years we have been the only British political party to have a one member, one vote system for the election of our leader. I am glad that the Conservative party is modernising itself. It is about time, because for years it has been the most undemocratic party in Britain.
We have not had a good explanation of why the Government are not prepared to put the date of the election in the Bill. That may be because of the internal problems of the Labour party or because they are worried about the passage of the legislation. They may be worried about their opinion poll ratings in May 2000. Perhaps they want to leave it as late in the day as possible so that they can be sure of winning. Only time will tell, but Ministers should have more confidence and should be prepared to include the date in the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House his apparent total lack of concern about the news that he has just been given that his party leader has resigned?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We should return to the amendment that is before the House.

Mr. Davey: I am tempted to answer that question, but under your direction, Mr. Lord, I shall not. At least our leader has given brilliant leadership to his party, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's leader.
The Government should, consistent with the Nolan recommendations, refer the date and the process of elections to an independent election commission. Having accepted the recommendations of the Nolan committee, one would have thought that the Government would implement them. There should be more transparency, certainty and stability in the management and organisation of elections. When the Government were in opposition they railed against secondary legislation and such decisions being taken by orders, but now they are in government they are changing their mind.
I support the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). I hope that the House will force the Government to put the date of the election in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I rise to speak about the date of the first election of the mayor and the assembly. I do not know what the Government are up to with regard to the second and third elections, and as I am a bear of very little brain, I see no point in trying to unravel what they are attempting to do in the second and third elections until we know what they are doing in the first. As the Chinese say,


"On long journey, first step most important." I would feel much firmer on the ground under my feet if I knew what the Government were doing.
Uncharacteristically, I have a certain suspicion of the Government: I am not normally prone to such scepticism. Whenever we discuss dates with the present Administration, there is always a degree of fluidity as to when things are going to happen. That certainly applies to recesses. We still do not know whether we shall go into recess for the half-term holidays, although we are hearing noises about how difficult that would be.
I do not know whether the Government's uncertainty on these matters is dictated by—[Interruption.] I do not have the total attention of my Front-Bench colleagues, but Labour Members are listening to me attentively, and they are, of course, my most important audience. I do not know whether the Government's inability to give us firm dates is a function of profound incompetence or immensely sophisticated psychological warfare. Ultimately, I do not mind, but it means that we have to press to get the date.
5.15 pm
We were originally told that the elections would be in May 2000. There then crept into the public prints a story—which may not have had validity, but it sounded as though it came from someone who knew—that the Prime Minister was extremely anxious to have the mayor beside him in the dome on 31 December 1999, and that he really could not see in the new millennium without the mayor. I think that I could manage to do so, but it was said that it was important to the Prime Minister that this experience should be shared. When the story disappeared from our screens, I suspected that officials had been quietly briefing that there was no way in which the elections could be ready by autumn 1999, and that this was a foolish ambition on the part of the Administration.
It would be profoundly helpful if, at this stage, we could be definitively told—as I thought the Deputy Prime Minister had done in an off-the-cuff remark some time ago—that the elections will be in May 2000. As the Bellman said in "The Hunting of the Snark":
What I tell you three times is true.
I look forward to the third time we are given the date of May 2000—I hope that that is what the Minister will tell us.
I look forward to that for another reason, which relates to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in Committee yesterday. He was temporarily incorrect in saying that the Conservative party had never won an election for the London county council. Those present will remember that, as soon as I half rose, he immediately corrected himself and agreed that it had won.
In correspondence with the Minister, I have discussed the LCC election of 1949, when the Conservative party won as many seats as the Labour party, which represented a major swing to the Conservatives. The one Liberal who was elected said that he would vote with the Conservative party. The Labour party used a stratagem to ensure that it retained power, but I shall not go into that, because you would rule me out of order, Mr. Lord.
I do not resent the fact that the Conservative party got 120,000 more votes in London that day and yet did not win the election. I would not regard that as an argument

for proportional representation, and I was happy to vote against all the Liberal Democrat propositions on PR yesterday, because it did not affect me. Such experiences concentrate one's mind on the small print when dealing with the Labour party in matters of Greater London. That is why I hope that we shall be given a date.
I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. We may have mutual doubts about the quality of the legislation before us. A learned lady—I think her name was Mrs. Hunt—once said that the entire administration of the Roman empire could be derived from the construction ut with the subjunctive. I do not have the same sense of total coherence and cohesiveness in this legislation, and it is not unreasonable for Opposition Members to ask to know the date of the first election. It may even make us more enthusiastic about the legislation than we have so far been.

Mrs. Lait: I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), although I would not go quite so far as he does in his two thoughts as to why no date has been given for the first election. I shall be charitable and say that it is an oversight.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Lait: No, it is not. Clearly, some of the more Machiavellian theories are true. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party are in the process of selecting their candidates for mayor in a clear and open way, whereas the Labour party is using this issue as a face-saving device to hide the chaos it is in.
We are clearly not going to get any satisfaction on this issue, but it is always worth a try. Certainly, Conservative Members will be very unhappy if no clear statement about the date is made in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, specifying a date would be quite an enticement to people to take an interest. Despite the Government's claim that there is great interest in London, we are not finding that people are desperate to vote for a London assembly. Having a date for the first election might help to provide democratic legitimacy.
I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) about the failure to inform us of when the second and third elections might take place. I am deeply suspicious about that: I suspect that the Government may wish to hold annual elections in London. In a previous existence, I represented two local authorities, one of which held annual elections and the other four-yearly elections. I agree with those who have said that it makes no difference: the turnout is the same. What is clear is that a small proportion of people are prepared to go out and do their democratic duty in all circumstances and at all times.

Mr. Wilkinson: I, too, have experience of both systems. Does my hon. Friend agree that four-yearly rather than annual elections would increase the likelihood of a large swing? Such an arrangement gives local authorities time in which to get on and govern, and also gives the electorate time to make up their minds on the basis of balanced judgments.

Mrs. Lait: I certainly think that it takes much longer to change the control of any authority when there are


annual elections. The problem is that, in such circumstances, authorities often end up with no overall control. The effect is, dare I say, similar to the effect of any form of proportional representation. No decisions are made; any decisions that are cobbled together are cobbled together behind closed doors, and no one who voted for any of the councillors concerned knows what policy will eventually be adopted. In fact, annual elections have two drawbacks, one of which is that they represent an unsatisfactory and unofficial form of proportional representation.
Not only do we need clarification of the second and third dates; as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) pointed out, there is a possibility of Machiavellian gerrymandering beyond a four-year term. At the least, we need an assurance that elections will take place within a four-year period. I am sure that none of us would find a longer period satisfactory.

Mr. Forth: I am not as charitable as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I suspect that there is something profoundly unsatisfactory—indeed, probably something sinister—about the Bill's present wording. I say that for an obvious reason. When it comes to a question as vital as elections and the timing of elections, surely the electorate—not to say MPs—are entitled to know at this stage where we stand, what we are being asked to approve and where we go from here.
As so often, the Bill says that all these matters will be determined by the Secretary of State. That in itself is profoundly unsatisfactory. We know the way in which the Government tend to make decisions: they make them on the basis of focus groups or opinion polls. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was, I think, the first to point out, there is every possibility that the Government are trying to give themselves electoral manoeuvring space to ensure that the timing of the elections is arranged in the most favourable way according to what they are being told, or think they are being told, by the current focus groups or opinion polls.
That takes us back—although you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Lord, that I do not intend to rehearse the arguments—into the territory of referendums, and what I consider to be their invalidity, in the sense that the timing of a question is crucial to receiving the desired answer. We are, I think, entitled to suspect that is what the Government are after now: that they want to be able to time elections, whether the first or subsequent elections, on the basis of what they believe will be most favourable to them. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us credible assurances that will not and cannot be the case.
That leads us to the question—also identified by my hon. Friends—of the relative merits of yearly and four-yearly elections. I have two problems with the idea of annual elections, one being the simple problem of cost. There will be a serious cost penalty if we have to crank up the election machine every year and expect the taxpayer and voter to pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, there is no evidence that annual elections will produce greater enthusiasm and participation; indeed, the opposite may well be the case. Until my hon. Friend put us right, I would have said that, if anything, the turnout for annual elections would be lower than that for four-yearly ones.
Another factor is continuity and stability of administration. Annual elections for any elected body mean the possibility, if not the probability, that control will change annually, preventing continuity or policy and producing what may well be a chaotic arrangement. That can be seen now in hung councils. Frequent control changes, as we all know, are a prescription for inadequate administration and inadequate policies.

Mr. Brake: Is the right hon. Gentleman honestly saying that every hung council that includes Conservative councillors is being run incompetently, and that those councillors are making no decisions?

Mr. Forth: No. I am saying that too many decisions are being made, and that they are often inconsistent and lacking in continuity of purpose. I accept that decisions must be made; I even accept, however reluctantly, that if the verdict of the voters is that there shall be no overall control, something must be done about that. My point is that returning to the electorate every year at least invites the possibility that they will alter the disposition of the council, and that there will be different arrangements, different coalitions and different control. That cannot be good for local administration.
The Minister has an obligation to tell us what arrangements the Government believe should be in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, those arrangements should preferably be stated in the Bill. The Minister may argue that is not entirely reasonable—that it would be rash to name a date before the Bill has completed its stages and been given Royal Assent—but I feel that he should at least tell us the reasoning behind the Government's proposals, and reassure us that none of the unease expressed by Conservative Members is well founded. I hope that he can assure us, and the people of London, that everything will be done properly, and will be above board.

Mr. Raynsford: This has been a remarkable debate. It has been characterised by paranoia, and by astonishing suspicion about the Government's intentions. We have been accused of sinister behaviour by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and of anti-democratic behaviour by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Before the hon. Gentleman makes further accusations of anti-democratic behaviour, he should reflect on the fact that it was his party that took from the people of London the right to vote for their own citywide authority.
We have heard paranoia from some Members who are prone to such tendencies: the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst probably fits into that category. I fear that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) is moving in that direction, but we also heard it from other Members of normally more sound and mature judgment: the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait).
I have to be charitable and assume that Members have been distracted. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, clearly, the news that their party leader is resigning has had slightly destabilising implications. I assume that, because the fear of losing members of one's party also has a destabilising effect, the loss of various Conservative


Members of the European Parliament has probably also had a destabilising impact on Conservative Members. In charity, I will allow that interpretation.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I will in a moment, but I have first to disappoint all the right hon. and hon. Members who have had paranoid delusions about our intentions. Let me explain why the date of the election is not in the Bill. The explanation is simple.
As hon. Members will recall, the Bill was published on 3 December. The date for the first election for the Greater London authority was only announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on Second Reading of the Bill on 14 December, so it was simply not possible for the date to appear in the Bill.
The position has now changed. As I have already made clear, we are a listening Government and are only too happy to accommodate reasonable amendments, even from other parties, if we believe that there is justice behind them. In that spirit, I am happy to assure hon. Members that we are happy to accommodate their wishes. The date is now known and it is possible to incorporate a date in the Bill. Therefore, I am happy to consider amendment No. 6.
I have to make one caveat. Because we have to have provision against the possibility of a national disaster, or an event that makes it impossible to hold the election on that date, there must be a consequential amendment that allows flexibility against such circumstances. [Interruption.] I can assure hon. Members that the resignation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would not be a national disaster and would certainly not require the postponement of elections to the Greater London authority.
Subject to that one caveat, we will be happy to consider the amendment and come forward with a further amendment that puts the intended election date in the Bill. We ask Opposition Members, for reasons that I will explain, to agree that the amendments that would remove the Secretary of State's power to make an order setting the dates on which the second and third ordinary elections would be held should be withdrawn. I would be happy to discuss with the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) between now and Report the form that those consequential amendments should take.
We do not seek that flexibility because we have a sinister and secret agenda to amend the dates of the first and subsequent elections for political advantage. We are as anxious as everyone else that the GLA should be elected at the earliest practicable date, but, for the practical reasons to which I have referred, the dates cannot become immutable. We must be able to respond to unforeseen circumstances that might make the postponement of the election unavoidable.
Conservative Members' protestations would have been more convincing if the legislation that they introduced to set up the Greater London council in the first place—the London Government Act 1963—and, indeed, the Local Government Act 1972, had provided for the first ordinary

elections to counties and districts to be fixed not by statute, but by the Secretary of State. Therefore, their record in government was not blameless.
Having said that, we intend to ensure that there will normally be a period of no more than four years between elections, but we need to allow an element of flexibility, not least because of the possibility of further primary legislation being introduced in relation to the dates on which London borough elections will be held. For that reason, we believe that it is necessary to retain clause 3(2), which enables the dates of the second and third elections to be moved if that becomes necessary.
In the light of the commitment that I have given to consider amendment No. 6, I hope that the hon. Members for Croydon, South and for Carshalton and Wallington will now agree to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Brake: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I hope that he noted that the Liberal Democrats were very calm and collected throughout the debate, regardless of what was happening elsewhere.
The Minister has made a major concession and I am happy not to press my amendments.

Mr. Brooke: I have not been specifically provoked by the Minister, but I could see that my father's role in the 1963 legislation was going to play a part in our proceedings. On behalf of the spirit of my late noble father, I will say that there was a long gap between Second Reading in 1962 and the election in 1965—a longer gap than that which prevails between today's debate and the date of the first election, so the then Government can be excused for not having set the date.
It is rare that any speech of mine or of my colleagues produces so immediate a concession and favourable response from the Government. I am grateful to them. However, I note that the explanation as to why the date was not in the Bill was that 11 days passed between publication of the Bill and Second Reading. The Government were unable to make up their mind by 3 December, but were able to make up their mind by 14 December, or whatever the date was.
The spirit of my noble father draws the Prince of Denmark briefly into the debate. I was Under-Secretary to Sir Keith Joseph, that great man. The job of Under-Secretary to that great man, who spent an enormous amount of time pacing the battlements of Elsinore, was occasionally to dart from a turret, tug him by the sleeve and say, "Secretary of State, the time has come to make a decision." I had not previously thought of the Deputy Prime Minister as suffering from the same degree of indecisiveness. Indeed, in physical terms, if I were to put them together in the same frame, I would have cast the Deputy Prime Minister in the role of Sancho Panza and the late Sir Keith in the capacity of Don Quixote. Why the Government could not make up their mind by publication of the Bill on 3 December remains a major mystery.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am afraid that I cannot match the invocation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) of noble shades or ancestry, or even match his literary allusions. However, I should like to probe the Minister more on one particular adverb: normally.
The Minister said that the second and third election dates could be affected by changes, notional at this stage, in the timetable for the elections for the London borough councils. Should not the election of the mayor and assembly of the Greater London authority have primacy? Should we not set a fixed timetable of a four-year term starting from 2000? Why do we need to change the second and third election dates?
If we are going to change the term, the Minister suggests that it might be extended. Might Londoners not want it to be curtailed, rather than extended? Therefore, I insist again that it is not correct to give the Secretary of State power to alter the dates of the second and third elections on the basis of what remains a hypothetical possibility: changes to the timetable for London borough elections, which Parliament has not yet approved.

Mr. Ottaway: I should like to say how much I appreciated the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). As we still have some 274 clauses to go and he is on the Committee, perhaps we might get one or two more speeches such as that from him.
The Minister has made a generous concession. I would not say that we are entirely happy with his reaction to the two amendments, but, under the circumstances, we think that his approach to the clause is right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

VOTING AT ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 38, leave out from 'system' to end of line 39.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 3, leave out lines 40 to 45.
No. 35, in page 3, line 41, leave out 'supplementary' and insert 'alternative'.
No. 36, in page 3, line 43, leave out 'a supplementary' and insert 'an alternative'.
No. 37, in page 3, line 45, leave out 'first and second'.
No. 51, in schedule 2, schedule 2, page 143, leave out lines 5 to 17 and insert—
'(2) The candidate with the fewest number of first preference votes is eliminated, and the second preference votes given for that candidate shall be ascertained.
(3) The second preference votes under subsection (2) above shall be transferred to the other candidates, being added to the first preference votes cast for the other candidates.
(4) If, following the recalculation under subsection (3) above, none of the candidates receives more than half of the votes, the remaining candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and the procedure in subsections (2) and (3) above is carried out.
(5) The process continues until one candidate has received more than half of all the votes, and that person shall be returned as Mayor.'.
No. 48, in schedule 2, page 143, line 20, leave out from 'the' to 'which' and insert 'Assembly shall decide'.

Mrs. Shephard: Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 have the effect of establishing a first-past-the-post system for the

election of the London mayor. The Minister has sought to demonstrate his credentials as part of a listening Government, and he has with his acceptance of some of the points made in the previous group of amendments. We shall test him further when we make our case for this group of amendments.
The Minister will know, because we have made these points on a number of occasions both on Second Reading and in Committee on the Floor of the House, that we are concerned with the clarity and transparency of electoral arrangements for assembly members and now, this evening, for the election of the London mayor.
Our concern for clarity extends to the selection of candidate for mayor, which will not involve caucuses, closed doors or smoke-filled rooms, but one member, one vote and the utmost transparency at every stage. We have a clean slate with regard to our own party selection arrangements.
As I said yesterday, and it is not disputed, the Bill is a substantial piece of legislation which will, in effect, set up an entirely new form of government. As the Minister will know, we feel that some of the Bill's proposals do not contribute to the principles of transparency and accountability which we look for in local government, because of the proliferation of bodies, agencies, duties and overlaps that they introduce.
In addition, the provisions that we are debating this evening will oblige Londoners to use three different voting methods for two elections to be held on the same day—first past the post for the 14 constituency assembly members, a form of proportional representation with a closed list for the 11 London assembly members and, for the mayor, if there are more than two candidates, a supplementary voting system.
All of that would be difficult enough, but the Government are subjecting our capital city and much of the rest of the country to unprecedented constitutional change. Notwithstanding what was said in the House earlier this evening, the Opposition's view that the Government's approach to all this constitutional change is piecemeal, is shared by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which, in its second report on the operation of multi-layer democracy which was published on 18 November 1998, said:
Devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is only one part of re-writing of the Constitution which is currently taking place. As far as we can see, this reform is being conceived piecemeal; if there is an overall blue-print showing how all the pieces will fit together, none of our witnesses were aware of it.
Thus we see different systems and different voting procedures being introduced in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, with some recent rumblings from the direction of Hull, East about regional government in England as well, with no thought as to how, if at all, these new bodies and their functions will interact or affect one another. Such an approach is not only irresponsible, but it strikes at the very heart of democratic accountability by blurring and confusing the processes with accretions and overlaps.
It has to be remembered that Londoners will face no fewer than four intermediate layers of government between local authorities and central Government—the mayor, the assembly, the London development agency and the Government office for London. There will also be a transport body for London, the Metropolitan police authority, a London fire and emergency planning authority and the cultural strategy group.
I am aware that on Second Reading the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that the mayor would be accountable for a number of those bodies and that there would, therefore, be accountability. But that proliferation of bodies and the consequent overlap of responsibilities could be confusing, and Londoners could be forgiven if they did not know exactly whom to hold accountable for policies affecting them.
5.45 pm
In addition, the Bill contains 277 clauses which set powers; introduce new rules, orders, functions, standards and regulations; plan audits; establish committees; set charges and levies, and provide for a set of new agencies. Against that background of wholesale change to be imposed on Londoners and against the confusion of accountabilities that the Bill, of necessity, introduces, the Government should pause to examine whether it would be better to retain a voting system to elect a mayor which is tried and tested, and familiar and comprehensible to the electorate.
We recognise that there is a case for a voice for London. That voice will be the mayor's. She will speak for London, to national Government and for London on the international stage. It was because we recognised the need for a voice for London that we recommended a yes vote in the referendum. The Government will no doubt argue that because the function of elected mayor is a new one—we would say an experimental one—it should be achieved with a new voting procedure. But we would argue that it is precisely because the Bill throws so much else into the air that a first-past-the-post, tried, tested and understood voting system should be used to elect London's mayor.
Leaving aside whether Londoners will welcome the range of different voting systems that they will have to face at borough, assembly, mayoral, parliamentary and European levels, which the Government are imposing on them, is not the reality that, in the end, there will be only two or three strong, high profile, credible candidates for the post of mayor? Would it not be better for the successful candidate to be able to say, "I was elected because I won a clear majority", not "I was elected because I was the least unacceptable candidate"—which could, to quote the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), be the effect of the broad based, superior, majoritarian system being proposed.
I move the amendments in the interests of clarity, decisiveness and comprehensibility.

Mr. Burstow: I start by picking up one or two points made by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). As she spoke, I thought of the proliferation of different bodies that will have a responsibility in the running of London when the Bill is enacted, and then I thought back to the proliferation of bodies that emerged from the abolition of the GLC, some of which I jotted down—the London planning advisory committee; the London fire and civil defence authority; the London grants committee; the London transport committee, which previously included two or three other agencies; the London ecology committee; the traffic director for London, and the London waste regulation

authority. So many different agencies and bodies were established by the previous Government to continue the governance of London by other means as a consequence of the abolition of the GLC, that I find it strange that the right hon. Lady now prays in aid the creation of so many new bodies as an argument for the alleged simplicity of the first-past-the-post system.
That goes back to some of the points made in yesterday's debate about the proposal that each of the boroughs should nominate appointments to those bodies. Perhaps it is a case of hankering after the structures which were put in place by the previous Government when they abolished the GLC, and a continuation of indirect representation on these London bodies, which has not worked particularly well during the past few years.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 51 deal with the fundamental issue of the method of election of the mayor. They would put in place the well known alternative vote system, which allows voters to express more than the two preferences allowed by the supplementary vote system proposed by the Government. Under the supplementary vote system, voters will have to make guesses and consider how to vote tactically in the election of the mayor. Many of those who made representations during the consultation period said that AV would eliminate the guesswork and result in a simpler system that would produce a better outcome for Londoners and for the governance of London.
The supplementary vote system can produce strange results. The Electoral Reform Society's document on electing the mayor—which has been referred to by other hon. Members in various terms, some not quite so glowing—gives an interesting worked example of how the system can produce perverse results in particular circumstances. In the first stage, the votes of four candidates are split evenly: the Conservative candidate gets 27 per cent. of the vote; an independent candidate gets 26 per cent.; the Labour candidate gets 24 per cent.; and the Liberal Democrat gets 23 per cent. Some hon. Members may regard that as an unreal example, but the situation has occurred in real elections, so the Electoral Reform Society's worked example is valid.
With no candidate getting a majority of the votes cast, the two top candidates go through to the next round and the others are eliminated. The second preference votes of the two eliminated candidates are examined and added to the totals of the votes for the top two. Second preferences for candidates other than the top two do not count. If the Liberal Democrat voters chose to vote for the Labour candidate as their second preference, those second preference votes would be wasted. If those voting for the Labour candidate split their second preferences equally between the independent and the Liberal Democrat candidate, half of those second preferences would also be wasted. The winning candidate in this example is the independent, with 38 per cent. of the vote. That is not a way to produce a strong majoritarian system of the sort described yesterday by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). The system is not fair because it does not allow all those in London who choose to exercise their vote the opportunity to express their preferences.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is arguing the case for AV. Will he confirm that under that system a candidate placed third on the first count could win the election?

Mr. Burstow: I am happy to confirm that that is a potential outcome of the system, which would enable Londoners' preferences to be properly reflected. This is clearly another debate in which we shall have the unusual spectacle—perhaps not today, but on Report—of large numbers of hon. Members voting together in an unholy alliance to preserve their interests. In an earlier debate it was said that voting systems were all about vested interests. We all have vested interests in the way in which voting systems work.

Mr. Forth: In the current circumstances, how can the hon. Gentleman claim that the Conservative party's support for first past the post is in its immediate interests?

Mr. Burstow: Perhaps the Conservative party should reflect on that. As we said yesterday, we want a voting system that allows the electorate to choose the people whom they want to represent them and allows those wishes to be properly reflected in the assembly. The current first-past-the-post system often denies the electorate the opportunity for their wishes to be truly reflected in their assemblies. That defect needs to be corrected. The alternative vote would go a long way towards dealing with that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to reflect on the other side of the question that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) properly asked. What is the difference between the election of a candidate who comes second in the first round and the election of the candidate who comes third—perhaps only 1 per cent. behind the second placed candidate? We either have a system in which a candidate wins on the first ballot—the first-past-the-post system, which everyone understands—or we have a system in which the person who comes first the first time may not win because someone else could come through.

Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Yesterday he rightly identified himself as not being an electoral reform anorak. I do not wish to wear such an anorak either, but these are important issues.
The Green Paper "New Leadership for London" did not mention the supplementary vote system as one of the possible methods for electing the mayor. It advanced three options: first past the post, which is the Conservative party's preferred option; the second ballot method, which is used for French presidential elections; and the alternative vote. In the White Paper—

Mr. Raynsford: I should like the hon. Gentleman to clarify a simple point. Does he recognise that the effect of the supplementary vote is the same as the effect of the French system, but the ballot is carried out on one day rather than on two?

Mr. Burstow: The procedures are not the same, because having a second ballot removes the tactical and guesswork voting that results from it all happening on one day. That is our criticism of the supplementary vote. We made our criticisms of the second ballot clear in our response to the Green Paper.
The White Paper described the supplementary vote as a simplified form of AV. Whom are we simplifying it for? It is patronising to say that the electorate cannot cope with marking "1", "2", "3" and "4" on a ballot paper to express their preferences.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The electorate wants the system because it is simple. Focus groups have said that supplementary vote is the system that they want.

Mr. Burstow: Some hon. Members sometimes feel that the Government are led too much by focus groups. Reliance is being placed on one focus group to support the contention that SV is the preferred system. When the issues are explained in more detail, there will be greater support for the system that we and many others outside the House propose.
The House debated the issue in 1931. I am sure that some hon. Members will now scurry off to the Library to check Hansard on that. A Bill was introduced to bring in the supplementary vote. After deliberation, the House decided that the alternative vote should be introduced instead. The Bill fell because of the undemocratic institution at the other end of this building, whose Members decided that they did not agree with it. That is another reason why the statement earlier today is welcome.
The supplementary vote is used only in Sri Lanka, for the election of the president. It was briefly used in Alabama in the early part of this century. Alabama abandoned the system because of a result in 1926, when the winning candidate secured only 29 per cent. of the first and second preferences. That is why the supplementary vote is not an appropriate way to elect a strong and effective mayor in the terms that the Government are proposing.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I must correct the hon. Gentleman again. The supplementary vote is not used in Alabama or Sri Lanka. That system is a variation, in which three preferences are recorded on the first ballot. Under the supplementary vote, the first and second preferences are recorded.

6 pm

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and happy to stand corrected on that point. We would have to call that supplementary vote plus—an innovation that takes us in the right direction, towards the alternative vote, the use of which we advocate. In Alabama, the supplementary vote system no longer operates, but my point is that it was used at the beginning of the century. The Institute for Public Policy and Research recommended the alternative vote for electing the mayor of London, saying:
We therefore recommend that the mayor be elected using the AV system. It overcomes the main drawback to first past the post, ensuring that the winning candidate has the support of over 50 per cent. of those voting.
Amendment No. 48 provides for the possible outcome of using the supplementary vote of a result tied between two candidates. It addresses the question of whether a tie should be resolved by drawing lots—that is, by chance—or by giving the assembly a role in making a decision. We contend that the assembly should have the right to


make a decision in cases where the election has not produced a conclusive result and two candidates emerge from the supplementary vote system with equal votes.
The amendments would increase voter choice and ensure that the mayor will start with a strong and clear mandate. That is why we have tabled them and we look forward to getting as much support in the Lobby as we can possibly secure.

Mr. Tony McNulty: I have already enjoyed one debate on clause 4, so it will be useful to me to participate in another one tonight, even if the outcome will be the same.
In the light of the news breaking as we speak, I wish the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) well, as probably the only London candidate in the forthcoming election. I know of no Member of Parliament who deserves more than he to have what is quintessentially a dead-end job going nowhere—surely it must be preferable to come a miserable third in the mayoral election.
Tonight, in respect of the amendments to clause 4, we have heard again many of the words that were blithely thrown around yesterday in respect of clause 2. Yesterday, it was the PR anoraks who were doing the throwing, but tonight they have been joined by the first-past-the-post anoraks on the Conservative Front Bench. Tonight, we have heard two perorations on alternative systems to the one proposed in the Bill. Lots of little words have been thrown around, but no significant justification has been offered as to why either first past the post or the alternative vote system are preferable to the supplementary vote system for use in the mayoral election. Neither argument has been rooted in what the office of mayor is all about or how it fits in with the overall structure; nor have the speakers, having established what the mayor is supposed to do for London, justified their choice of electoral system.
That is why, last night, my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction was entirely right to dismiss the PR and first-past-the-post lobbies as anoraks. They start from some notion of purity in electoral systems, but fail to work out how their chosen system will fit in, even though they claim to have done so. Instead, they use a blithe little lexicon that assumes that they have discussed the merits of both the role of the mayor and the electoral system.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) says that the system she prefers is better because it is more transparent. If pressed to explain why it is more transparent, she simply restates that it is more transparent. It is sub-intellectual and febrile to believe that if something is said often enough, it becomes true: an election system is transparent because it is transparent because it is transparent. We get the same sort of argument from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), whose personal dynamism leads us to hope that he will not be the election agent for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk must recognise that, rather than three different electoral systems for different bodies being a flaw in the Bill, they are in fact the Bill's glory and strength. We need the 14 directly

elected members to take the authority some, albeit not all, of the way towards parochialism, thus giving it some local basis, albeit in super-constituencies. However, to reflect both the diversity of London's communities and the relative strengths of the political parties in London, we also need a degree of proportionality. That there are to be directly elected members as well as supplementary or additional members is not a flaw, nor is the fact that there is to be an entirely different system for electing the mayor. Anoraks apart, people recognise that the institution should determine what electoral system—or systems—is appropriate to fill it, not the other way around.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman made exactly the same point yesterday about the voting system for the assembly. He said that the system was wonderful and ideally crafted for the purpose the assembly is to fulfil; however, he did not explain the link between the system and the purpose, nor has he done so today. I do not doubt that he is such a loyalist that, whenever the Government come up with a system, he will say that it is wonderful and perfect for the purpose. However, I have not said, either yesterday or today, that the proposed systems are entirely inappropriate. If he is to be true to his own arguments, the hon. Gentleman has to explain why the proposed system, which was in part devised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and is to be uniquely applied in Britain, is the perfect system, when many others that are already used, in both this country and others, work perfectly well.

Mr. McNulty: I know that, more often than not, the hon. Gentleman is polite, but I also know that he must be seen to attack Labour in such a distasteful manner if he is to establish his leadership credentials, so I shall let him off for now. If we have a clause stand part debate on clause 4, I shall certainly elaborate on why the proposed system is the appropriate electoral system for the institution of mayor. However, with my limited grasp of parliamentary procedure—a failing which Madam Speaker and her deputies have had cause to bring to my attention on many occasions—I thought that the current debate related to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and I was endeavouring to stay in order. If we have a broader debate, I shall be happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman.
I am sorry to say that colleagues on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs were wrong to say that the reform is piecemeal. We are making constitutional change in appropriate areas and our agenda is as clear as day. Although it might be slightly off message to say so, I am at one with the rumblings emanating from Hull, East about having a regional tier of government for England to fit in with the rest of the jigsaw. With the greatest respect to all those who serve on Select Committees, I have to point out that the fact of an opinion being expressed in a Select Committee report does not make it right.
It is not irresponsible or blurring by accretion to have a plethora of different electoral system and institutions that are appropriate to regional responsibilities. Unlike the way in which the body politic and all its parts developed during the 18 years of Tory Government, all the developments made under Labour are, at root, democratic. Opposition Members might think that a trite point, but I happen to believe that it is fundamental to our entire constitutional agenda that all the elements are democratic.
It is rather lame to say that first past the post is tried and tested, so if we have an election for a single post, we should use first past the post and ensure that we get a recognised voice for London. That is the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument, and no consideration is given to the context within which the London mayor is to operate, or to London's diversity. No single system is ideal. All we can do is try to use each system appropriately and I believe that, on balance, the system set out in the Bill is the most appropriate.
Neither is it the case—this argument is equally weak—that we have decided to introduce a new electoral system for this novel new post. That might be how the new "British way" Conservative party organises policy, but it is not how we do it. We organise policy in a far more responsible manner. If I thought that first past the post would be more appropriate given the nature and role of the mayoralty in London, I would say so.
In recent months, we have had many nauseatingly boring debates in this Chamber about electoral systems. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk said that a mayor elected under first past the post could claim to have a clear majority, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many hon. Members in this place are not elected by a clear majority. I suspect—I have not done the research—that very few hon. Members could put their hands on their hearts and say that they were elected by more than 50 per cent. of their electorates. I was not, and I am sure that many of those opposite were not either. I was elected by 52 per cent. of the 70 per cent. of people who voted. I asked whether hon. Members were elected by more than 50 per cent. of the electorate, not of those who bothered to vote. Very few hon. Members could make that claim, and a London mayor certainly could not do so in the absolute terms suggested in the context of a first-past-the-post electoral system.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will expect me to say that the examples in the Electoral Reform Society document aim to prove a point. I was touched by his naivety when he said, "They are in the pamphlet, so they must be true." That is like saying that something is true because a lawyer said so. If that is the hon. Gentleman's experience, I would like the name of his lawyer. It simply does not follow.
The system outlined in the Bill is the most appropriate and the arguments advanced by the PR anoraks do not stand up. We are told that the system is dreadful because a candidate with a low number of votes could win, as occurred in the worked example in the ERS document. However, nothing was said about that last night when the Liberal Democrats mentioned the single transferable vote—it is their pure flame. It consistently results in more and more Johnny-last-in candidates in terms of the Teachta Dala in Ireland. Such candidates hang on by dribbles of preferences and never get anywhere near a significant amount of the vote, especially in five-candidate constituencies. They get elected simply because they are the last ones standing—and there is nothing democratic about that. So the Liberal Democrats' "pure" system is completely impure as well.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said earlier—I was going to intervene but it was not worth it—the Electoral Reform Society makes it clear that the supplementary vote plus system is the same in Alabama and Sri Lanka. That is what it says in the document, so my hon. Friend's valid

points stand in relation to both examples. It does not prove anything to ask, "But what about Alabama?". If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam does not believe me, he should take up the matter with the Electoral Reform Society. It says clearly in its introduction that Alabama and Sri Lanka have the same supplementary vote modified system. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington does not make the hon. Gentleman's case.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Burstow: rose—

Mr. McNulty: I shall give way first to the new Liberal Democrat leader.

Mr. Hughes: The Electoral Reform Society is in my constituency, so I must defend it. It says in the document that the Alabama system is no longer used, and cites the example of the winner who had 29 per cent. of the vote. I accept the assertion by the hon. Member for Workington that the situation is not quite the same in Sri Lanka because there are three people in the final count between whom the votes are transferred. However, the issue is the same: should we allow the accumulation of the preferences of all those who vote? Under that system, we could get nearer to a plurality of votes for one candidate. Under the Government's proposed system—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Mr. McNulty.

Mr. McNulty: As hon. Members have said, the Electoral Reform Society document refers to the 1926 gubernatorial primary in Alabama when the winning candidate got 29 per cent. of the first and second choice votes. I fully accept that. It then defies the argument that the supplementary vote systems are different in Sri Lanka and Alabama by saying:
A similar version of the system has been used since 1978 to elect the President of Sri Lanka.
The system is similar in terms of the supplementary vote variation, not in some other way. I hope that we shall return to the debate about STV, although it is not appropriate to do so now. I suppose that I shall have to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman over a cup of tea, which is a shame.
It is true that the system is similar to the French system—although we shall complete the process in one day. The Bill's key point is that we must break free of the mindset of fighting elections under the first-past-the-post system. I hope that all parties will fight the first election on the basis of not just "Support our candidate because we're the best" but also "Support so and so for second". Under this system, if political parties do their jobs correctly, they will tell the electors clearly what to do with their second preferences. It is not a case of candidates simply winning more than 50 per cent. of the vote. We must appreciate each of the different systems in that context. I suspect that we will face the same hurdles when we ask people to vote in their constituencies, but for different reasons.
I do not understand the legitimacy of amendment No. 48, which fundamentally ignores—or at least misunderstands—the new architecture of London governance. In the event of a tie in an election for an executive position that is distinct from the assembly, the amendment seeks to give the assembly—which had nothing to do with that election—the power to choose the winner. The only justification for that position—we return to the naked self-interest of the Liberal Democrats wrapped in treacle, as I said last night—is that it is designed to reinstate Liberal amendments that have been rejected by the Committee. The Liberal Democrats want a proportionately elected assembly that will elect the mayor. That position profoundly misunderstands the relationship between the various elements of London's new government.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has failed to tell the Committee what will happen if the Bill is not amended as we propose. The alternative is that a mayor of 7 million people will be chosen by drawing lots. My view of the hon. Gentleman's concept of democracy will diminish very rapidly if he is honestly claiming that the mayor of London should be chosen by drawing lots rather than by the votes of 25 elected members of the assembly.

Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman again shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between the two elements. The two elections will not happen on the same day by coincidence. They are elections for different things taking place in different contexts. In the unlikely event of a draw in the mayoral election, I would rather draw lots than allow an assembly that has no democratic mandate regarding the election of the executive to choose the winner. The hon. Gentleman can giggle in his little anorak way all that he likes, but that is the reality of the situation. If two mayoral candidates each secured 3.5 million votes, I would rather see the winner chosen by drawing lots. Twenty-five assembly members who were elected to perform entirely different roles should not choose the winner. That may or may not reflect the credentials of the two remaining candidates in the race.

Mr. Hughes: We have considered inaccurate parallels with American elections. After the votes in US presidential elections have been added up, a second group—an electoral college—decides who should be President. I repeat that I cannot believe—I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman believes—that Londoners would rather have a lottery and have a chance choice made between two people who got the same number of votes than that 25 other people to whom they have given a vote of confidence should choose who they thought was the appropriate person.

Mr. McNulty: That demonstrates that any claim—one was made soon after the general election—that the proposals simply copy a failed American model is wrong. Such a claim was made last night by a colleague who was sitting behind me but who is not here tonight.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is wrong in one regard—the electoral college is the first, not the second stage in US presidential

elections. That system does not work on the basis that if a popular, first-past-the-post vote is tied, the decision goes to an electoral college. In presidential elections, people vote for members of the electoral college. If that vote is tied, the decision goes—completely wrongly, in my opinion—to the legislature, rather than the executive. That fundamentally blurs, by accretion, democratic mandates.
We are discussing different parts of government in London. Flipping a coin is far preferable to another body, which has nothing to do with the executive in the democratic process, making that decision.

Mr. John Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNulty: I give way to the man with the retail store in Uxbridge.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman can repeat that any time he likes. Would he prefer the drawing of lots or the tossing of a coin? In other words, is he a drawer of lots or a tosser?

Mr. McNulty: That remark was well worth my allowing the hon. Gentleman to intervene and far preferable to all the interventions that I have just accepted from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who I would say, if I had to put money on it, does not draw lots.
The Bill has got the balance right in its proposals for electing the mayor. I have heard nothing of substance from the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk or the putative new leader of the Liberal Democrats that changes my mind. We should resist, as trivia borne by anoraks, all the amendments.

Mr. Wilkinson: I hope that I will be taken seriously in this debate if I confess that I am not a political anorak or an electoral system wonk and that, come election time, unlike Liberal Democrat Members, I do not wear sandals.
The further the Liberal Democrats get from power, the more keen they become on what the electorate would regard as jiggery-pokery with the figures and what in French or Euro-speak might be termed "repechage"—a blatant attempt to manipulate the electorate's clear decision.
The great merit of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) is that the first-past-the-post system is readily comprehended. All the mayor needs to know is that he or she is chosen by the majority of Londoners. That is the key question. It is not a matter of second preferences. The mayor needs to be the person who receives the most wholehearted support from those who want him or her to be their mayor.
People often vote for second preferences without wishing them to be elected. I am sure that the Minister will advise the Committee whether, as I presume, it will be valid for voters only to make one choice. Many Londoners may do so. Will he advise the Committee also why the second preference votes for the candidates who are eliminated because they do not come first or second—or third, if there is a tie—should count more than the second preference votes cast for the candidates who come first or second? I do not comprehend the distinction that is being drawn.
The other point that we must clearly understand is that the electorate must have confidence in the system and must understand it. The best argument for the simple system that my colleagues propose was made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). At the end of his speech, no one was any the wiser as to the merits of the amendment that he was supposed to be putting forward. The second-best argument came from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who, after 20 minutes, had not convinced the Committee of the inherent merits of the Bill's proposals. He has, rightly, fled. I doubt that anyone was convinced by his arguments.
I do not want to anticipate the debate that we might have on schedule 2, but if members of the electorate for London seeking guidance on the system for electing the mayor turned to that schedule, they would find it extremely complicated, whereas they comprehend fully that the candidate who wins the most votes most deserves to be elected.

Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that the system is simple because people can understand that the candidate who gets the most votes should be the winner. However, does he accept that in many cases, particularly a mayoral election in which there might be three, four or five candidates, it is highly likely that, under first past the post, no candidate will win the support, in his words, of the majority of Londoners?

Mr. Wilkinson: It would be clear that more Londoners supported one candidate than any other. That is what matters. The gradations of second or third best are of no consequence because regardless of how people cast their second vote—and third vote, if they have one—their hearts will still be with their No. 1: choice. In our highly party political system, that first choice will, unless he is an independent candidate of exceptional merit, carry the same ideological convictions as the voter and be someone whom the voter regards as best suited to implementing the party political programme of the mayoralty, which will have been put to the electorate.
It is not valid to suggest that we shall get better governance, which will have more support from Londoners in general, from a system that could rely on second preferences. That will call into question the validity of the election system as a whole and diminish the electorate's interest in voting because they will find the system complicated and unconvincing. We need the maximum turnout for a system that everybody understands, that is traditional and that achieves the objective—the return of the person who has more support from Londoners than any other candidate.

Mr. Martin Linton: I shall not detain the Committee for long. I apologise for not being present for the opening speech by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), although I did, by electronic means, hear her describe the first-past-the-post system and refer to my description of the supplementary vote system as a superior majoritarian system. I shall briefly try to convince the Committee that the SV system is indeed superior to first past the post, which her party advocates, and, in those circumstances, to the alternative vote system that is supported by the smaller opposition party. Certainly first past the post would be greatly inferior in the current circumstances. My hon. Friend the

Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) summarised her speech as, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", to which the short answer is that the first-past-the-post system is broke. It would also be especially dangerous in the election for the mayor of London—the first executive election in these islands and quite different from any that preceded it.
6.30 pm
As I am sure that everyone who has spoken in the debate knows, the main failing of the first-past-the-post system is that it can result in the election of people on very low percentages of the vote. The hon. Member for the quaintly named constituency of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) was elected by 31 per cent. of the voters, and Sir Russell Johnston the former hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—another quaintly named constituency—was elected by only 26 per cent. under the present system, while his rivals received 25, 24 and 22 per cent. In other words, Members have been elected on less than a third of the vote in this Parliament and on only just over a quarter of the vote in recent elections.
Let us consider the lack of legitimacy that the system would give to a London mayor. We must also take on board the fact that, in a mayoral election, independents have a stronger chance and more people will be voting other than on political grounds. I should not advocate it, but experience in the United States suggests that name recognition will count for a great deal, independents can make a stronger showing, and business experience and other factors may be considered relevant in a way that they might not be in a legislative or council election.
There may be 10, 20 or 30 candidates, and five or 10 plausible candidates might get a share of the vote. I want to draw the Committee's attention to what happens under the first-past-the-post system in countries that have a plethora of candidates. The only country that has adopted first past the post—this supposedly superior system—since just after the second world war is Papua New Guinea. It started with the alternative vote but switched to the first-past-the-post system in the 1960s. I assure you that this is highly relevant, Mr. Martin.
Under the alternative vote system, candidates in Papua New Guinea had to appeal to voters along the lines of their splintered, tribal, village politics. The candidates had to find support across the country in order to get the 20 or 30 per cent. of the first choices that they had to have if they were to stand any chance of winning. When the country switched to first past the post, it reverted to the narrow politics that revolves around small villages. A candidate in Papua New Guinea is returned to Parliament on 6.5 per cent. of the vote, while the 15 or 20 other candidates get less.
I accept that there is not much correlation between an election in Papua New Guinea and a mayoral election in London except for the possibility that we may have a plethora of candidates, all plausible and all with some support, and we may well be pushed into having a mayor elected on 6.5 per cent. of the vote. It is clear that, in a mayoral election in which there may be many independent candidates, there is an overwhelming need for an electoral system that guides people to make a realistic choice between a small number of candidates rather than opening the way for an election that descends into farce.
There is nothing wrong with picking an electoral system that forces people to choose. At the end of the day, any choice of an executive boils down to a choice


between two alternatives, and one is trying to get voters to think realistically about the alternatives. The supplementary vote, devised partly by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), is exactly such a system. It forces people to think before the election who would make a good mayor and who it is worth spending one's vote on. A voter has only two votes and cannot choose any number of options. The process of narrowing the choice and the realistic alternatives is vital to the success of the mayoral elections.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was quite wrong to say that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was going to run for one dead-end job. In fact, he is having to choose between two possible dead-end jobs. One would be the Liberal Democrat candidate for the mayor of London and the other the leader of his party. Clearly, we need a system that will narrow the choice and thus force people in London to choose between realistic alternatives, without denying them the second choice that can avoid the difficulties of tactical voting.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk complained that voting under three different voting systems on the same ballot paper would cause confusion and difficulty, a point also made by some of her colleagues. Let us consider a possible ballot paper for the London vote on 4 May next year. While it may be true that experts would describe it as containing three different voting systems, to the voter there will be very little difference between the vote for the constituency representative, the London representative and the mayor.
The only instructions that need appear on the ballot paper are that one should put an X against the candidate that one supports for the constituency representative, an X for the party list or independent candidate that one supports in respect of the London representative, and an X for one's first and another for one's second choice of mayor. All three are X votes. Voting experts may say that they employ three different voting systems, but they will not appear so to the voters. Each system will involve simply putting one X or two. That is another reason why the supplementary voting system would be superior in this instance to the alternative vote. If the alternative vote were adopted for this election, we would have two elections by X votes and a third by preferential voting, which involves marking 1, 2 or 3 next to the candidates. The ballot paper will ask for three votes, all of which will be X votes. That is the enormous merit of the system over the two alternatives.

Mr. Edward Davey: I hope that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) will not take offence if I say that, although some hon. Members have spoken about election system anoraks, he has proved that people who know about election systems can be quite entertaining. I congratulate him on his contribution. I was especially taken by his points about Papua New Guinea choosing first past the post. As I recall, Papua New Guinea was the only country that also opted for the poll tax while it had the first-past-the-post system. That again shows the demerits of that system.
An issue that has not been examined in enough detail is the type of post that we are electing. It is a new post. We have not had a mayor or a mayoral system before,

which means that the way that we have thought about politics and elections probably needs to be reconsidered. The Government have gone some way towards that, but they have not opened their mind sufficiently to the implications of a mayoral system; nor do I detect that the Conservatives have applied their minds to the matter.
We are voting for one person, and the whole executive will be in that person's hands. The mayor will form a cabinet, but does not have to form one based on his or her support in the legislature. It is totally separate. The election of the mayor is about just one person, not that person's relationships with another party. That is why I believe that independents will stand.
If the process is about electing just one person, we need the electoral system to give as much legitimacy to that person as possible. That is where first past the post fails completely. The hon. Member for Battersea referred to a former Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, Lord Russell-Johnston, who was elected on just 26 per cent. of the vote in 1992. That shows how the winning candidate from four or five candidates under first past the post would have very little legitimacy. On anyone's analysis, 26 per cent. of the vote cannot be considered full legitimacy.
The strength that is normally acknowledged of first past the post in general elections is that it gives a clear result, with no need for coalitions. I do not accept that argument for general elections, but, in elections for a mayor, it does not apply at all, because they involve the election of only one person. There is no question of forming a coalition—at least I do not think that one can form a coalition with oneself, unless one is schizophrenic. We would not suggest that Londoners would elect such a person. Therefore, first past the post is not appropriate for mayoral elections.
The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments supporting the alternative vote primarily because it is the most suited to this type of election. The alternative vote will ensure that, whoever is elected, every Londoner's vote will count. Whoever wins, more than 50 per cent. of the people of London will have expressed some preference for them. That would surely enable them to govern London with much greater legitimacy than other options open to us.

Mr. Wilkinson: If the hon. Gentleman sets such store by the winner receiving the majority of the votes cast, would not a simpler and much more intelligible method be to stage a re-run, eliminating—perhaps—all but two candidates, rather like in French elections?

Mr. Davey: I think that I am beginning to win some support. The alternative vote achieves that automatically because it allows people to express their preferences. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned, as I am, about ensuring that the winning candidate has a majority, he must vote for our amendment. I invite him to join us in the Lobby.
During this sitting, we have heard some news that has affected my party particularly. I should like to draw to the Committee's attention the fact that not only do we table amendments in support of the alternative vote system for the election of one post, we employ the practice in our internal elections. The Liberal Democrat leader will be elected under the alternative vote system. That shows that we have faith in it—not because it happens to be in our


interests in the London elections, but because we believe that it is the fairest and most democratic system. We practise what we preach.
I know that the Labour party—I am not so sure that this applies to the Conservative party—employs the alternative vote system in its internal elections because it believes that that gives more legitimacy to the people whom its party members are electing. The Labour party does not have much faith in the supplementary vote system for its internal elections—nobody has ever told me that it uses such a system—so it is amazing that it has dreamt one up for London. Labour certainly does not practise what it preaches, although I suppose that we are used to that.
One argument against the alternative vote system—that, somehow it would be complex—must be tackled. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that the first-past-the-post system had the merits of simplicity. He is insulting the people of London if he believes that they cannot decide first, second third fourth and fifth preferences. Is it really that difficult?
Labour Members suggested that such a system would confuse the electorate because people would be voting in a different way for assembly members. I find that insulting to the people of London, too. It is not difficult for people to put the numbers one to six into six boxes. That is one of the most simple things to do. The complexity is in the counting of votes. Although we would not deny that the system can be complex, computers and trained electoral adjudicators could ensure that there would be no problem. The key point is that the system would not pose any difficulty for the elector.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) defended the supplementary vote system. I am not sure whether he will be known in future as Mr. Lottery or Mr. something else, following the suggestion by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). In his so-called defence of SV, the hon. Member for Harrow, East gave no reasons. He did not answer the question why it would be the best choice for the election of mayor. Perhaps he will give his reasons during the clause stand part debate; we certainly hope so. We were unconvinced by his arguments, and remain convinced that our arguments for the alternative vote system are far superior.

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) because I shall make one or two remarks about Liberal Democrat contributions to this debate.
I was taught by the late Alan Whitehorn, the father of Miss Katherine Whitehorn, the journalist. He would require us to translate Tennyson, psalms, hymns or Shakespeare into Latin or Greek verse. In prose, he would periodically ask us to translate something like our driving licences, in order to test whether we could embrace technical language as well. Speeches by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on the subject of proportional representation would have been quite a good candidate for the process that I have described. Although one must be uncertain about the outcome, the one thing of which one could be certain is that they would be neither Ciceronian nor Demosthenic.
I give the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam one piece of credit. He demonstrated that he could read out word for word a brief provided by the Electoral

Reform Society. That same briefing was deployed last night by the Liberal Democrats in debates on the single transferable vote. I was struck on that occasion by the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who has also spoken in this debate, who drew attention to the totally practical disadvantages of STV in Irish elections, to which the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) has alluded today. Those practical disadvantages did not, at least to my eye, appear in the Electoral Reform Society briefing. I do not remember it drawing our attention to the fact that the system did not work too well in Ireland.

Mr. Linton: The right hon. Gentleman might care to know that the Electoral Reform Society is precluded by its constitution from supporting any system other than the single transferable vote.

Mr. Brooke: The great thing about remaining in this House for a long time is that one learns something every day. Although I like to feel that there are one or two other advantages, that is certainly a prime one. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remark. To some extent, he has elided my next point: the arguments deployed seemed to be primarily academic and technical rather than practical.
I think that our electorate is the most mature in the world, and as a Londoner, a fortiori, I think that our electorate in London is the most mature in this country. Their virtue, and what gives them their maturity, is that their attitude to what we are about is essentially practical.
I confess that, in my salad days in this House, I once voted for proportional representation on one measure—an arcane fact that at least one political journalist has uncovered and revealed to me that he has done so and would, if necessary, hold it in evidence against me. In those days, I was of the view that, if PR was to have a future in this country, it needed to be tried out on the electoral foothills before anybody made an assault on the south col. Almost 22 years of sharing this Chamber with first Liberals and then Liberal Democrats has cured me of any enthusiasm for PR. If I were an adviser to the Liberal Democrat party, I would, in the sere and yellow of advancing age, give it the same advice that I cited a moment ago. I would also urge it, for the practical reasons that I gave a moment ago, too, that it should make its system as simple as possible. The speech that we had from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, in all its Sri Lankan and Alabaman complexity, demonstrated that, in terms of simplicity, the Liberals have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

Mr. Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by extolling the virtues—including maturity—of the people of London. Surely he is not suggesting that, despite that maturity, they could not make their preferences in the order one, two, three, four, five.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My peroration is devoted to that subject, so if he will forgive me I will answer him then. You will be delighted to hear, Mr. Martin, that I shall come to my peroration very shortly.
In passing, I may be the most recent Member present to have visited Sri Lanka. We had a wholly admirable Sri Lankan driver, who told us that he had not voted in


the last six presidential elections in Sri Lanka, but he then rather spoilt the effect, in the context of this speech, by saying that he was of so conservative a temperament that he would be happy if the British were to return. It just shows that London cab drivers are not the only ones in the world to play to their passengers guessed-at predilections.
However, the heart of this debate is the proposition in the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) that the Government are asking us to tackle too many new voting systems at once. I do not share the views of the Scottish judge that a change for the better is a contradiction in terms, and I am not averse to experiment, but it is possible to have too much of a good thing, and it is possible to discredit that thing in the process. That is why I believe that the people of London will be better off staying with the system with which they are wholly familiar, and should not be asked to try a whole series of new systems simultaneously.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had a wide-ranging debate. We have done a veritable world tour, covering areas as far apart as Alabama, Sri Lanka and Papua New Guinea, and now we return to London.
As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) reminded us, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) opened the debate by claiming that there were too many different voting systems. I have to accept that the Liberal Democrat party has given the impression that the debate is all about a plethora of voting systems, but the Government's proposals are not complex and detailed or prolific.
Last night we discussed, and decided on, voting arrangements for the assembly. Tonight we are considering the voting system for the mayor. We are not offering a range of voting systems; we are offering one simple voting system—the supplementary vote. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk said that she wanted a mayor elected with a clear majority—not the least worst candidate. We agree whole-heartedly. That is why we do not support the Liberal Democrat advocacy of the alternative vote system, under which it would be possible for a mayoral candidate to be elected with very limited first preference support, simply on the basis of second, third, fourth, fifth and umpteenth preference votes from people who saw that candidate as the least worst on offer. That is not a good recipe for a mayor with a strong mandate to deliver effective government for London, and we reject the Liberal Democrat amendments proposing that system.

Mrs. Lait: We are discussing only the election of the mayor at the moment but, unless I am mistaken, on election day—4 May in the year 2000—Londoners will be confronted with three electoral systems in the polling station. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will fund education to promote awareness, and fund training for polling agents, presiding officers, electoral registration officers and so on, so that they are capable of dealing with the voter rage that is bound to follow, and so that they may have counselling afterwards for its effects?

Mr. Raynsford: Mr. Martin, I shall not risk incurring your wrath by straying into that territory, which is far

from the subject of the amendment before us. The amendment is specifically about voting arrangements for the mayor—arrangements for people to vote on a single ballot paper, in the way that they do in elections for a Member of Parliament or councillors, and which will not involve additional costs or expenditure. We shall deal with those matters at the appropriate moment. I assure the hon. Lady that we shall make appropriate arrangements to ensure that the first election for the mayor and assembly of London can be handled efficiently, and that reasonable costs incurred by local authorities conducting those elections will be reimbursed through the normal and appropriate mechanisms. However, that is far from the subject of the debate.
The supplementary vote does not have the effect of the alternative vote, which could allow a candidate incapable of getting substantial support on a first preference vote to win. The supplementary vote ensures that only a candidate who can come in the top two on the first preference can go forward and, ultimately, win. It therefore ensures that the winning candidate must have a large measure of first-preference support.
The system has been discussed many times, and was recommended most recently by the Plant committee, established earlier in this decade—or perhaps toward the end of the last—with a very distinguished membership, including my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford: I am wrong to say that my hon. Friend was a member of the committee; he submitted evidence to it, and the committee recognised the good sense of his evidence and recommended the supplementary vote system, which he had advocated. I pay tribute to his advocacy, for many years, of an electoral system that ensures the election of a candidate who commands substantial support, and which ensures that, in a situation such as a mayoral election for London, in which there may be many candidates, no candidate can win on the basis of very limited support, simply because of the wide spread of voting preferences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) put it, it is a superior majoritarian system of voting. That is why we have adopted it.

Mr. Edward Davey: Can the Minister confirm that, under SV, the winning candidate may gain less than a majority of the votes of the people of London?

Mr. Raynsford: It is certainly possible that, under SV, the winning candidate will not secure 50 per cent. of the votes cast, because only the second preference votes of the defeated candidates—those not in the first two places—will be reallocated, and some of those votes may not be for candidates in the top two places. However, that does not in any way negate the value of the supplementary vote system. That system ensures that—as in France—only two candidates who have secured substantial support in the first preference vote can proceed to the second stage, so that only strong candidates with real backing are in the final run-off, and those are the two whose total votes, with the second preferences added, ultimately determine the outcome.
The amendments before us would change the method of election for mayor from that recommended by the Government. The Conservative amendments would restore a first-past-the-post system, requiring a simple majority. The Liberal Democrat amendments would replace the supplementary vote system with the alternative vote system. Neither proposition is acceptable to us. The White Paper clearly said that we had considered those alternative arrangements, and made it clear why we had rejected them in favour of the supplementary vote system.
The election of the first mayor of London will be the first time that we, in the United Kingdom, have a directly elected executive fulfilling a major responsibility such as that which the mayor of London will fulfil. In itself, that appears to us to call for a method of election the result of which attunes itself as closely as possible to the expressed views of the electorate, and which delivers to the candidate the strongest mandate possible. That is why we have proposed election by the supplementary vote system.
We want a strong mayor, with whom the people of London can identify, and whom the majority of those who vote will feel that they have had a say in choosing—if only by the use of the second vote. I am therefore unable to accept the Conservative or the Liberal Democrat amendments, which would change the electoral system for mayor. I invite the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to withdraw their amendments.
Amendment No. 48, also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is wrong and wrong-headed. The intended effect of the amendment is to allow the assembly to take a tie-breaking decision when two candidates for the office of mayor receive an exactly equal number of votes during the election. Such a situation is exceptionally unlikely. We are talking of an electorate of 5 million, and 5 million votes, or a proportion of them, cast between a range of candidates with first and second preferences is exceptionally unlikely to produce the situation that is suggested. However, irrespective of that, the amendment is wrong because it is technically defective. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who introduced it, seems not to have read subsequent provisions in the Bill. If he had, he would know that clause 4(7) requires the returning officer to determine who has been elected as the mayor, and constituency assembly members, before the returning officer can decide who are the London members of the assembly. Therefore, after the first elections to the GLA an assembly will not exist until after the tie-breaking decision would need to be taken. As I have said, the situation that has been suggested could not happen. At the second and subsequent elections the decision would have to be taken not by the new assembly but by the outgoing assembly, and clearly that would be nonsensical.
7 pm
The amendment is wrong-headed because what is being proposed would allow a separately elected assembly, with a different mandate from that of the mayor, determining who should or should not be the mayor. It would make whichever candidate was chosen as the mayor beholden to the majority in the assembly for his or her office. That would fundamentally undermine the authority of the mayor and undermine the principle of the separation of powers that we intend to put in place for the new authority. Therefore, the assembly should not take such a

tie-breaking decision. The decision should, as is the case in all other tied elections, including elections to membership of the House of Commons, be left to the random outcome of the drawing of lots. In these circumstances, I invite the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to withdraw the amendment.
The Government's proposal for the supplementary vote is an important and innovative system of election that is entirely appropriate to the innovative system of government that we are proposing for London. It will ensure the election of a mayor with a strong mandate who is able to represent the people of London confidently and to fulfil the serious responsibilities which we are giving to the post. I urge right hon. and hon. Members who have moved amendments to withdraw them. If not, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Government's position and to reject the amendments.

Mr. Burstow: It has been a useful and interesting debate. Having listened to the comments of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I shall take away his comments, reflect on my earlier contribution and endeavour at a later stage, perhaps, to adopt a more plain English approach to the presentation of electoral systems.
The debate has focused on first past the post, the supplementary vote and the alternative vote, and because of that the issues become very confusing. I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have perhaps demonstrated that quite ably this evening. As the Committee knows, our proposal is that there should be the alternative vote. We would wish to return to the matter on Report and therefore we shall not be pressing the amendments on the alternative vote now.
We feel that given the Minister's remarks about a tied vote for the mayor and the technicality of the relevant amendments, it would be appropriate for us further to consider them. However, we are not convinced by the Minister's arguments. We feel strongly that the issue should not be decided on the toss of a coin. We believe that we need a simple and fair voting system that maximises support for the mayor and allows genuine and full choice for the voter.

Mrs. Shephard: It has been a wide-ranging debate. We do not normally travel from New Guinea via Sri Lanka and Alabama back to London. Nor are we dragged to and fro between 1926 and the present day.
The debate has stimulated the Liberal Democrats to crown their achievements of yesterday, when they proposed no fewer than four electoral systems for the assembly, by proposing a completely incomprehensible system, which has been described by the Minister as such, for the election of mayor.
The debate has also stimulated the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) to continue his barrage of surely undeserved insults against the Liberal Democrats, accusing them of an anorak tendency while demonstrating certainly his growing credentials to be a trainspotter. We have had a customary erudite contribution from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who might prefer to be known as a superior majoritarian given that he is clearly an expert in that particular system.
We have had sound sense and elegant erudition from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and my right hon. Friend the Member


for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). We have had customary urbane reassurances from the Minister, who is very far from being either an anorak or a trainspotter.
The point of the debate is how to achieve a clear and comprehensible system for the assembly and the mayor of London against the background of the great changes to the governance of London that are set out in the Bill. The Minister has made it clear that he cannot accept our amendments. We believe that his stance is mistaken. We believe also that the clarity that we seek can be achieved only by a first-past-the-post system of election both for the assembly and for mayor. We therefore seek to divide the Committee on amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 131, Noes 335.

Division No. 41]
[7.6 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Amess, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hammond, Philip


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hawkins, Nick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hayes, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heald, Oliver


Baldry, Tony
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Horam, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hunter, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jenkin, Bernard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon



Cash, William
Key, Robert


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Chope, Christopher
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clappison, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Lansley, Andrew


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Collins, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Loughton, Tim


Day, Stephen
Luff, Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
Major, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Flight, Howard
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Norman, Archie


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard



Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paterson, Owen


Gray, James
Pickles, Eric


Green, Damian
Prior, David


Greenway, John
Randall, John


Grieve, Dominic
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robathan, Andrew





Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tyrie, Andrew


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Walter, Robert


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wardle, Charles


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Swayne, Desmond
Wilshire, David


Syms, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Young. Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John
Sir David Madel and


Tredinnick, David
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allan, Richard



Allen, Graham
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clelland, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Clwyd, Ann


Austin, John
Coaker, Vernon



Baker, Norman
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cooper, Yvette


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Bennett, Andrew F
Cotter, Brian


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Cox, Tom


Best, Harold
Cranston, Ross


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blizzard, Bob
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Boateng, Paul
Cummings, John


Borrow, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradshaw, Ben
Darvill, Keith


Brake, Tom
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Breed, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dawson, Hilton


Buck, Ms Karen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burgon, Colin
Dismore, Andrew


Burnett, John 
Dobbin, Jim


Burstow, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H


Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drew, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caplin, Ivor
Edwards, Huw


Casale, Roger
Efford, Clive


Caton, Martin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cawsey, Ian
Etherington, Bill


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Chaytor, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chidgey, David
Fisher, Mark


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clapham, Michael
Fitzsimons, Lorna






Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Don (Bath)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Fyfe, Maria
Love, Andrew


Galloway, George
McAllion, John


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonnell, John


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gunnell, John
McWalter, Tony


Hain, Peter
McWilliam, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mallaber, Judy


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marek, Dr John


Hanson, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Harvey, Nick
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Hill, Keith
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Home Robertson, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Morley, Elliot


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Howells, Dr Kim
Mountford, Kali


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie



Muldie, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Illsley, Eric
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Oaten, Mark


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Olner, Bill



Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pickthall, Colin


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pike, Peter L


Keeble, Ms Sally
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pope, Greg


Kemp, Fraser
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Purchase, Ken


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kingham, Ms Tess
Radice, Giles


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Raynsford, Nick


Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Leslie, Christopher
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)





Rendel, David
Stringer, Graham


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Rooker, Jeff
Stunell, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Salter, Martin
Touhig, Don


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sawford, Phil
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tyler, Paul


Shaw, Jonathan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sheerman, Barry
Wallace, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walley, Ms Joan


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Watts, David


Singh, Marsha
Webb, Steve


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wicks, Malcolm



Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wise, Audrey


Spellar, John
Wood, Mike


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woolas, Phil


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, James


Stevenson, George
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. Clive Betts and


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Davey. The hon. Gentleman must be quick.

Mr. Edward Davey: I will be quick. I merely want to put it on record that the Liberal Democrats oppose the clause standing part of the Bill, for the simple reason that the Government have not argued their case strongly enough for the supplementary vote system. In reply to my intervention, the Minister made it clear that that would not ensure that a majority of Londoners had voted for the winning mayor—

Mr. Jim Cousins: Person.

Mr. Davey: Person. I thank the hon. Gentleman. Only our proposed system would ensure that the majority had voted for the winning woman or man. As I said, we are opposed to including the clause in the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I did not mean that his speech should be quick, but that, when I am proposing the Question, he should be quick in getting to his feet.

Mr. Ottaway: Any clause containing an election method for the London assembly that enshrines a method of proportional representation is unacceptable to Conservative Members. We shall divide the Committee on it.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Mr. Martin, you performed a service to the Committee by urging the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to get to his feet rapidly, as his speech was kept short. He and other Liberal Democrat Members have been making their arguments on the voting issue, but, ultimately, the issue will come down to numbers. Today, although he argued that the Government failed to argue our case sufficiently strongly, the Division numbers clearly show that we have won the argument.
I tell the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that I quite understand his discomfiture. The official Opposition's arguments on the issue—which was debated in no small detail—also failed to convince the Committee, which comprehensively rejected the official Opposition's amendment.
The Committee has had a protracted debate on the systems to be used to elect a mayor and an assembly. I do not propose to re-open the issues in this stand part debate.
Our debates have had the benefit of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—each of whom, in his own way, is an expert on the matter. As the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said, my hon. Friends took us to New Guinea, Alabama, Sri Lanka and back to London.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction said in replying to the previous debate, our proposals for the voting system for both mayor and the assembly are important and innovative. That is what Londoners voted for in the referendum, and it is what the Government shall deliver.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 154.

Division No. 42]
[7.22 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Burgon, Colin


Ainger, Nick
Butler, Mrs Christine


Allen, Graham
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caplin, Ivor


Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger


Austin, John
Caton, Martin


Barnes, Harry
Cawsey, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Battle, John
Chaytor, David


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Begg, Miss Anne
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony



Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blizzard, Bob
Clelland, David


Boateng, Paul
Clwyd, Ann


Borrow, David
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coleman, Iain


Bradshaw, Ben
Colman, Tony


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Connarty, Michael


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Buck, Ms Karen
Cooper, Yvette





Corbett, Robin
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corston, Ms Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jamieson, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)




Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dalyell, Tam



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dawson, Hilton
Khabra, Piara S


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kidney, David


Dismore, Andrew
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dobbin, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kingham, Ms Tess


Doran, Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Drew, David
Laxton, Bob


Drown, Ms Julia
Leslie, Christopher


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Efford, Clive
Linton, Martin


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Livingstone, Ken


Etherington, Bill
Lock, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Love, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McAllion, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCabe. Steve


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flint, Caroline
McDonagh, Siobhain


Flynn, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Follett, Barbara
McDonnell, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McFall, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Fyfe, Maria
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galloway, George
McNulty, Tony


Gapes, Mike
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gardiner, Barry
McWatter, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goggins, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Grogan, John
Meale, Alan


Gunnell, John 
Merron, Gillian


Hain, Peter
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mitchell, Austin


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moran, Ms Margaret


Healey, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morley, Elliot


Heppell, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hesford, Stephen
Mounttord, Kali


Hill, Keith
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Home Robertson, John
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hope, Phil
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hopkins, Kelvin
Norris, Dan



Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Osborne, Ms Sandra






Palmer, Dr Nick
Spellar, John


Pickthall, Colin
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pike, Peter L
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Plaskitt, James
Steinberg, Gerry


Pollard, Kerry
Stevenson, George


Pope, Greg
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stinchcombe, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Stringer, Graham


Prosser, Gwyn
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Giles



Rammell, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Todd, Mark


Rooker, Jeff
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Ryan. Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salter, Martin
Watts, David


Savidge, Malcolm
White, Brian



Sawford, Phil
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shipley, Ms Debra
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Singh, Marsha
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Wood, Mike


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Worthington, Tony



Wray, James


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Clive Betts and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Allan, Richard
Cotter, Brian


Amess, David
Cran, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Curry, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Norman
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan Smith, Iain



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brake, Tom
Evans, Nigel


Brand, Dr Peter
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Breed, Colin
Flight, Howard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gale, Roger


Burnett, John
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burstow, Paul
Gibb, Nick


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gray, James



Green, Damian


Chidgey, David
Greenway, John


Chope, Christopher
Grieve, Dominic


Clappison, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Collins, Tim
Hammond, Phillip





Hancock, Mike
Page, Richard


Harris, Dr Evan
Paice, James


Harvey, Nick
Paterson, Owen


Hawkins, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Hayes, John
Prior, David


Heald, Oliver
Randall, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Rendel, David


Horam, John
Robathan, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hunter, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Spicer, Sir Michael


Key, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Steen, Anthony


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Streeter, Gary


Kirkwood, Archy
Stunell, Andrew


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor. John M (Solihull)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lidington, David
Townend, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tredinnick, David


Livsey, Richard
Trend, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tyler, Paul


Loughton, Tim
Tyrie, Andrew


Luff, Peter
Viggers, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wallace, James


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Walter, Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


McLoughlin, Patrick
Webb, Steve


Major, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Malins, Humfrey
Whittingdale, John


Maples, John
Wilkinson, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Willetts, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Willis, Phil


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilshire, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moore, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Nicholls, Patrick




Norman, Archie
Tellers for the Noes:


Oaten, Mark
Sir David Madel and


Ottaway, Richard
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

VOTING AT ELECTIONS

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 143, line 27, at end insert
'no later than 55 days prior to the date set for the ordinary election'.
This is a probing amendment. Schedule 2 provides that lists of London member candidates must be submitted by the registered political parties, but there is no time scale. We want to ascertain the Minister's thinking on that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): The amendment would set for parties wishing to field candidates in the elections


for London wide members a limit of 55 days before the assembly elections to submit their lists to the Greater London returning officer.
The amendment is unnecessary and impractical. The time limits for the close of nominations in elections are normally laid down in secondary legislation, but the amendment would put a time limit in the Bill, which we believe would be an unnecessary constraint.
If the normal time limits for local elections are used for the assembly elections, the last day for nominations under our proposal would be the 19th day before the date of the poll, excluding weekends and public holidays. For an election on 4 May 2000, nominations would have to be in on or around 31 March—about five weeks before polling day. We see no need to extend the campaign further, and electors will have every opportunity to get to know who are the candidates on a particular party list.
The amendment could mean that nominations for London wide seats might close at a different time from nominations for constituency seats and mayor. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) would agree that that would be nonsense, because half the campaign would be under way and half the candidates would still be undeclared. He would also agree, after listening to my remarks, that there is no need for the amendment. There is no reason why we should not keep the normal time limits for local elections.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, to our debate. I am tempted to say that her arguments are persuasive; this is not an issue that we have decided is a great cause to fight. There is logic in having a similar date, and there is certainly logic in not extending the formal campaign. No one who has been through an election campaign would want a six-week formal campaign instead of a three-week campaign. The pre-campaign will be bad enough without the formal campaign being elongated.
It is perfectly proper for the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to table a probing amendment, and we should reflect on what the Minister has said. If we need to, we can return to the matter. Ideally, the list would be published on the closing date for individual candidacies for constituencies, if we are to have the system proposed by the Government.

Mr. Ottaway: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 144, leave out lines 25 to 37.
The amendment would remove the artificial 5 per cent. threshold, which any candidate seeking to be elected to the assembly by the list system has to surmount. There are many political views in this country that we disagree with, many that we find unacceptable and, on rare occasions, views that we find repugnant. Politicians of the left, the right and the centre usually find common cause in fighting and resisting the policies of the extreme right and the extreme left. We do so because we choose to, and because we are committed to the political process, but we are also committed to the democratic process.
Everyone has views, particularly Members of Parliament, and we exercise our democratic right to express those views. One had only to go outside the House into Parliament square this afternoon to see demonstrators from Chile expressing their views for and against General Pinochet. Nowhere is the opportunity to express one's views in a civilised way more enshrined in tradition and culture than in this country. One of the most enjoyable ways of spending a Sunday afternoon is to go to Speakers' Corner, where the wide variety of views expressed range from the extreme to the eccentric.
That commitment to democracy led us to table the amendment. The rationale behind it is straightforward and simple: if 4 per cent. of Londoners express support for a candidate and if, under normal circumstances, that is sufficient for him or her to join the assembly, it is right, proper and democratic for that 4 per cent. to have their voice heard on the assembly.
However, under the system that the Government propose for the assembly—devised, I understand by a Mr. d'Hondt—any party standing for the London assembly will need at least 3.8 per cent. of the vote to get one of its members on to the assembly and, under extreme circumstances, that figure could drop as low as 2.8 per cent. Thus we are debating the difference between 2.8 per cent. and 5 per cent. Conservative Members would far rather accept the natural threshold than the arbitrary imposition of an extra 2.2 per cent. Why is someone's view unacceptable if 3 per cent. vote for him, but acceptable if 5 per cent. do so?
The moral for the Government is that one cannot just pick and choose with the electoral system. If they do not like the consequences of proportional representation, they should not introduce it in the first place. The Conservative party is fundamentally opposed to the principle of PR. It produces weak, divisive Governments and assemblies, and severs the link with constituencies which we regard as important. Israel is experiencing a nightmare situation, with religious groups with low percentages of support holding the balance of power to the country's detriment.
7.45 pm
It is all very well for the Government to have thresholds when it suits them. They had no threshold in the referendum for London and they had no such artificial threshold in Scotland or Wales. They should not have a threshold in London just because they might disagree with someone's political views. This matter goes to the core of democracy. If the Government cannot stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this important debate. Those of us who have been involved in London politics for a long time understand its significance. It will be the last substantive debate on the Bill and I hope that the Committee will excuse me if I take a few minutes to outline the issues.
May I make it clear that the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power to prescribe a threshold—a percentage of the vote that a party needs to surpass in order to be elected—and that the maximum threshold would be 5 per cent.? I remember hearing a perfectly reasonable response from the Secretary of State, whose good faith I do not doubt. He said that he would consult widely on the matter before determining his view.
My colleagues and I propose to vote against the schedule tonight because, at this stage, we do not want to concede that the discretion should be left in the hands of the Secretary of State, nor do we want to jump to the conclusion that, for the first time in Britain, a threshold will be set at 5 per cent., which is what will happen if we leave the schedule in the Bill.
There are two main issues. The first is, how do we accommodate smaller, perfectly democratic parties?

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Like the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Hughes: No, not like ours. Ours is a large party, although it is perfectly good and democratic. Indeed, it is a much older party than the hon. Gentleman's.
This is a relatively easy issue. The obvious party to mention is the Green party, which has made a good contribution to British politics and to many of the political systems in the European Union and beyond. It has an interest in the outcome of this debate and would agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that, if there is to be a threshold, it should be the natural threshold, which works out at 3.8 per cent.
Those who, unlike the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), have not received the briefing or done the work, might ask why the natural threshold is 3.8 per cent. I thought about it and calculated that, if there were 25 members, the threshold would be 4 per cent. However, 25 members plus one are needed for the counting, so 3.8 is the threshold. My gut reaction on the general question of a threshold for the assembly is that we should have the natural threshold. The weakness in that argument is that the threshold is determined by the size of the assembly, which is in a sense arbitrary. I understand that.
Let me be absolutely honest: if we have a bigger assembly, as we propose, with 40 members, the threshold will be smaller. To get one seat out of 40 requires a threshold of 2.8 per cent. There is therefore no definite point at which the threshold is right.
The second issue is whether a top threshold of 5 per cent. should be set. Britain has never had a threshold before, so it is a new experience for us and it is perfectly proper that we should debate it. It would require a persuasive argument to raise the threshold from its natural level.
As I have said, I am no great expert in this matter, although I have an interest in electoral systems. I should like to cite four examples: New Zealand and Germany have a 5 per cent. Threshold—I am well aware that Germany has had a threshold for a long time as it is a legacy of the post-war settlement, imposed on it by this country as part of its redemocratisation and to avoid a repeat of what happened in the 1920s; Italy has a 3 per cent. threshold; and Israel has a threshold of between 2 and 3 per cent. Thus there is a range of thresholds in other perfectly reputable modern democracies.

Mr. Linton: I challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Britain has never before experienced a threshold in its voting system. Although we have never experienced an explicit voting system, the Opposition recommend that we accept the natural threshold of 3.8 per cent. We had a natural threshold in our voting system throughout the 19th century when, in all seats other than those in Ireland,

there were only two candidates in practically every election. There was therefore a natural threshold of 49.9 per cent. During most of this century we have had three-cornered contests, so the threshold has been 33 per cent. Our system does include a threshold, so it is odd that the Opposition argue against one.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's point is relevant to the wider debate, although it is not as relevant to recent history. I thought that he was going to give the example of Northern Ireland. It is true that Northern Ireland has a natural threshold, because it has had a single transferable vote system for a long time, but Great Britain does not.
We have never had a prescribed threshold, nor has the Secretary of State had the power to determine a threshold. I am troubled about the prescribed threshold, because it is arbitrary—a 5 per cent. maximum is arbitrary. Even if the Secretary of State acts in good faith, the power would be on the statute book and could be varied by order at a later date.
The Neill committee, and the Nolan committee before it, recommended that such electoral matters should go before an electoral commission. The Government have accepted that for Scotland, and there is such a proposal for the House of Lords. My instinct is that the matter of whether we have a threshold and what it should be must be referred to someone who does not have a party political view and does not have a party vested interest—a point that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) made in debates on other amendments. I am making the point in a non-oppositional way.
The threshold will be set by a Labour Secretary of State, who will assess what will be the right threshold for the elections to be held next year. It will make a big difference to the Green party whether the threshold is 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 per cent. It could determine whether Labour has a majority in the assembly. In the general election, Labour got 49 per cent. of the votes cast in London, so it almost had a majority. If that were replicated, a decision on the threshold could determine whether Labour would get a majority on the assembly. That is a hugely political matter.
Whatever advice the Secretary of State takes—the Callaghan Administration rejected the boundary commission recommendations at the end of the 1974–79 Government—he may make a much-criticised decision that is alleged to be party politically driven. We should avoid that. I ask Ministers to subject the matter to independent assessment before they make a proposition, so that it is out of the party political domain.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Will the hon. Gentleman express his personal opinion about whether the Government are taking a cynical approach to deciding the threshold for party political advantage or whether their approach is a genuine attempt to ensure that extremist parties have no place in a London assembly?

Mr. Hughes: I am coming to that point and, in that sense, the hon. Gentleman and I come from the same political part of London. I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me when I said that I respect the good faith of the Secretary of State. I do not doubt that the Government want to deal with that issue, and they would be criticised if they did not do so. I am not suggesting that they are


trying to gain party political advantage. I am making the point that if the House gives any Minister of any Government the power to make the choice, his choice, given he is a political animal, will be affected by the political factor. The choice of a 2, 3 or 4 per cent. threshold could determine whether the Green party got a seat, and that could determine whether the Labour party had a majority.
I want to address the question of how we deal with non-democratic, right-wing, illiberal, extremist and fascist parties. In every parliamentary election that I have fought in the docks and in the east end of London, I have had right-wing, racist opponents. I am happy to say that, without any thresholds, we have taken them on and seen them off. Over the years, the one thing that has united all three of the main political parties in my seat is the fact that, between us, we have been able to keep the vote for right-wing parties as low as possible, and in spite of expectations, they have never achieved more than about 2 per cent. I regard that as very important.
What dangers do we see coming down the track from the right-wing parties? Philosophically, being a purist, I would prefer to start with a natural threshold, but I concede that we should not reject a prescribed threshold out of hand. There is a danger that, with 14 seats and a list system, extremists could whip up a right-wing agenda and get people out to vote for a right-wing party when they otherwise would not have done so.
A racist candidate knows that he cannot win in the seat of the Minister for Transport in London or in the seat of my friend and neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). In a first-past-the-post system he will never get more than a few per cent. of the vote, but he takes part to incite racist views. Thank God, the right wing has only ever won one election, which was in Millwall a few years ago. The problem was rapidly dealt with, for which I pay tribute to the Labour party. The Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for London and Construction played a large part in that, and I pay tribute to them unreservedly. I would rather a thousand times that Labour won every seat in Tower Hamlets or anywhere else, than any of the right-wing parties. It would be unacceptable if right-wing parties were to win seats.
A list system makes a difference. I am concerned that if we present to people the prospect of an extreme right-wing candidate being elected with 3.8 per cent. of votes cast, it may act as an incentive. They may think that they will get a right-wing candidate elected, whereas post-war electoral history shows that extreme right-wing parties have done badly in London—I put aside the rest of the country.
We should not be simplistic about the past. The figures for the average votes cast across London for the British National party or the National Front show that they have done badly in the past, but their candidates have not stood in most seats. They have stood in only a few seats, so the figures give a false average. They have got a higher percentage of votes in the seats for which they have stood. It is still only about 1 per cent., so we must be careful not to award them a bigger influence or political importance than they have. Under the legislation, members of those parties will be able to stand as candidates for the

assembly. Past voting figures are not a good comparison, because there has never been a slate of right-wing candidates.
We share the Government's view that if the assembly is to represent London and if black people, Asians, Africans, Caribbean people and people of all backgrounds, races, creeds, colours and characteristics are to feel part of the electoral process and to be encouraged to take part in it, we must ensure that they are not subject to harassment, intimidation or political annihilation by people who have a dogmatic, undemocratic and racist agenda.
I am sympathetic to the idea of a threshold, but I am unsympathetic to the proposal that it should be decided by the Secretary of State, however ethically aware and eminent he may be. I am unsympathetic to the idea that we should today, without any further debate among colleagues whose views we have not heard, decide that it should be no higher than 5 per cent. and that that is the absolute, because that figure has been plucked out of the air.
I hope that, however we vote, hon. Members will agree that there should not be a "take it or leave it" conclusion—that the Government should not say "We have thought about this, and therefore we are absolutely right." They may be right, but we nevertheless need to have the debate. Let me make an offer to the Minister for Transport in London, whose credibility in this regard I have no reservations about endorsing. Ultimately, I should prefer an agreement to be reached between conventional, democratic, proper political parties, in relation to "green" parties but also in relation to how we deal with right-wing, racist, anti-democratic parties. If the outcome of this debate is Ministers' being able to say, "We are happy to get the best objective answers to these questions", it will be very welcome.
8 pm
We support the removal of the provision from the Bill for the moment, but that should not be interpreted as opposition to a debate or a threshold. We need consensus. I am sure that the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who represent the borough opposite mine across the Thames and who have had experience of such issues, agree that is better for democracy. We have a common interest in securing the best possible democratic traditions. We all want to ensure that people who are bigoted, prejudiced and racist—people of whom I have been a victim when, as an MP, I have taken them on—are put on the margins of politics and never obtain a toehold in this country, as they have in some of our neighbouring countries across the channel.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Let me say immediately that I respect the views expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and do not for a moment question the integrity of the Liberal Democrats.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the racism that is endemic in a minority of the east London community. As I have said, I respect his party's integrity. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that the British National party won a by-election on the Isle of Dogs in 1993, partly because of policies employed by the Liberals in Tower Hamlets. Those policies were condemned not just by the Commission for Racial Equality and by hon. Members on


both sides of the House, but by the High Court, as being racist in their application to housing. In the climate that was created, the BNP was able to exploit antagonism in impoverished communities in relation to unemployment, housing problems, overcrowding and all the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and I experience in Southwark and Tower Hamlets.
I commend the Liberal Democrats for taking action. Let me make a belated suggestion. I know that members of the hon. Gentleman's party, including him, wanted disciplinary action to be taken against elements in Tower Hamlets. Friends of mine in the party argued for some time that it had been hijacked, and I do not for a second suggest that the responsibility lies directly with the hon. Gentleman or his party, but there is some culpability. Extremists of the right will try to infiltrate all political parties to pursue their own advantage.
In 1993, the BNP won a by-election on a first-past-the-post basis, gaining nearly 1,600 votes and beating Labour by seven. We employed our resources massively to win back the seat, doubling our vote to 3,000; but the BNP increased its vote to 2,000. I speak as one who represents part of Tower Hamlets and part of Newham—an inner-city east London seat with a multi-cultural population, like those of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). My point is that, as it is easy for racists to play the racist card when it comes to poverty, overcrowding and homelessness, we should introduce artificial requirements to ensure that the racists have no platform.
In the GLC elections of 1977, the National Front scored 19 per cent. In that context, a 5 per cent. threshold would be meaningless. I want to engender a multi-cultural London and to promote the diversity and richness that already exists. In a democratic society, there is no place for people who say, "You do not have a right to live. You do not have a right to a job. You do not have a right to live here, in dignity and with respect." We need thresholds of decency. I see this as nothing other than a genuine attempt by those who are concerned for society to make it clear that there is no place in that society for racism. I accept that many views exist about political theology, ideology and philosophy, but there can be no place for those who take a discriminatory or prejudiced approach to people because of the colour of their skin, their race, their sexuality or their religious origin.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, so that people do not receive an unhelpful false impression, will he confirm that the 19 per cent. figure that he gave for the 1977 election was not—thank God—the London-wide figure, but was only a local figure? Nothing approaching 10 per cent. has ever been achieved across London.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me.
We have seen what can be conjured up. In France, the National Front and Jean-Marie le Pen command a respectable number of votes. Thank goodness for the winning team in the French world cup, which was multi-cultural. Zinedine Zidane scored goals in the final. If anything cheered anti-racists throughout the world, it was the French winning the world cup. I have no

hesitation in saying that, in a Parliament dominated by English Members. They may not be the greatest lovers of French culture, but, as an expatriate Scot, I do not have the same difficulty.

Ms Oona King: When we discuss the election of one local councillor, should we not bear in mind that in 1981 Jean-Marie le Pen managed to secure the election of only one local councillor, but 10 years later there were 1,000 in France? It takes only one to provide the electoral credibility that can start the process. That is why it is so important for the Government to provide for a 5 per cent. threshold.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: The bottom line is that fascism is not about democracy, about respect for the 5 per cent. threshold or about respect for humanity or individuals. The BNP and the National Front will put on an electoral facade in order to con people. They will say, "We are looking after white interests." But we know that, as soon as they have been beaten in the ballot boxes, they will take to the streets. They will continue to perpetrate violence against black people, and people who do not agree with them—against political opponents like all of us in the Chamber.
There is no place for racism, extremism or fascism in our society. There is no disagreement about that. That is why Labour Members wholeheartedly support the Government's threshold, which we see as a message or symbol. We have read about the Lawrence inquiry, and we know what is happening in society. We are determined to create dignity and decency, and we must convey that message.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has said, if we give such people an inch they will take a mile; so we must give them nothing. We must give them no space in which to breathe, or to peddle their propaganda. We must prosecute them whenever possible when they express their views in writing, and we must not give them space in which to operate as a political organisation. We have learnt the lessons of history, from Germany and elsewhere. Such people must not be given a toehold.
I respectfully suggest to Conservative Members that, although a 5 per cent. threshold introduces an artificial obstacle to democracy, democracy itself is too precious for us to give such people the air to breathe. This is a small step towards depriving them of their platform.

Mr. Wilkinson: I admire the moral conviction of the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), but I cannot share his conclusions; rationally, they do not stand up. I wholeheartedly support amendment No. 58 and, on this occasion, we have support from the Liberal Democrats.
As I said at the outset, there is, as Kenneth Starr might have observed, a pattern of behaviour emerging. Clause 3 contains the power for the Secretary of State to dictate the timing of the second and third elections to the Greater London authority. In schedule 1, which we did not debate, the Secretary of State has the power to decide when a boundary commission should examine constituency boundaries. Now, in schedule 2, the Secretary of State will have the power, if the schedule is passed unamended, to decide whether the threshold should be above the natural one, under the d'Hondt formula, of some 3.8 per cent., up to a limit of 5 per cent.
It is surely for us to decide what the threshold should be during the passage of the legislation. I concur wholeheartedly with the judgment of my hon. Friends that it should be the natural threshold. If the d'Hondt formula has any merit—it has little—it is that it does at least set a natural threshold that eliminates the possibility of, I will not say rogue candidates, but not serious candidates, who have minimal support, being returned to office.
I caution the House against artificially limiting the accession to the assembly, by diktat of the Secretary of State, of representatives of political parties that the Government may not support and the objectives of which they may not share. To do so is fundamentally undemocratic. It is for the electorate to decide who their representatives should be.
If the electorate votes in sufficient quantities normally—that is, without such interference—to secure representation, they should be permitted that representation. If they are not, frustration results and the likelihood is greater, rather than less, that those who are denied representation will pursue anti-democratic, perhaps violent means to achieve their political objectives.
We have seen with the proscription of Sinn Fein and other parties that such proscriptions are unwise. Setting an artificially low threshold will not have the result that the parties on the Government Benches desire.

Mr. Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it can be fundamentally undemocratic to support a threshold of 5 per cent. if he supports a system that has an implied threshold of at least 30 per cent.?

Mr. Wilkinson: I do not support any artificial threshold. I just happen to feel that the person who secures the most votes in any particular electoral area should be returned, however many people vote for him or for her. As I have said, it is not a matter for such jiggery-pokery.
In my political career, I have seen people putting up supposedly hopeless causes. When I was first elected in Bradford, a representative of the Pakistan People's party stood in the Manningham ward in Bradford, West. It may have seemed totally illogical, but, at that time, to the Pakistanis, it seemed the right thing to do. No doubt Mr. Bhutto was pleased that they had a candidate, but that is beside the point. The lesson to be drawn was that the Pakistanis felt that a PPP candidate would have represented their interests best. Had he been elected, be it by 30 per cent., as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggests could have occurred, I would have accepted that result.
8.15 pm
Who are we to decide which party or affiliation is unworthy of election? The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town cites the National Front. The Front-Bench team of the Labour party might suggest old Labour in certain circumstances, the Socialist Workers party or goodness knows who else. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) argued, the Greens might be denied an office that, without such interference, would properly be theirs; so might supposedly racial parties.
In part of the east end, it could be a Bangladeshi candidate; people in that area might feel that a Bangladeshi was right. In Brent, it could be a Gujarati, or, in Southall, a Sikh. One does not want London to polarise on such racial lines, but, in certain circumstances, it might be better that there should be the possibility of such racial representation than that it should be artificially denied.
The schedule as drafted demonstrates yet again the determination of Her Majesty's Government to proscribe, to interfere and not to allow the House to make its judgments. That is wrong. Electoral arrangements should be made here rather than by the Secretary of State or the commission, because commissions tend to be appointed by Her Majesty's Ministers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not think that I was suggesting that we delegate the power to the commission. I was suggesting that we delegate the power to make the recommendation to a body such as that, but that it comes back to this place—Parliament—to make the decision on the basis of that advice.

Mr. Wilkinson: Of course. The hon. Gentleman is right. I was not following his remarks accurately enough in drawing the interpretation that I did, but I was thinking, for example, of other commissions that are told to do things on our behalf, such as the one on which Lord Wakeham will serve. I tend to misjudge commissions because they tend to be packed with people who will offer the advice that Her Majesty's Ministers seek.
I welcome the fact that, on the issue of thresholds, if on few others, there is genuinely bipartisan agreement between my party and the Liberal Democrats. We are right. We should stick to the natural threshold of 3.8 per cent. under the d'Hondt formula.

Ms Glenda Jackson: We are grateful for the opportunity that the amendment has afforded the House to discuss an important and serious issue. At present, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have power to set a threshold of not more than 5 per cent. of the vote which a party or independent candidate would have to attain in order to win a London-wide assembly seat. We are under no illusions and we would regard it as grossly irresponsible if we did not listen and continue to listen to what the House says, and welcome and ask for views on what we propose.
If the Bill is passed, It would be the first time that such a threshold has been set. We acknowledge that the reason why we have made the proposal is because we are presenting a unique electoral system in London. It will be the first time that the systems are being used to create this type of authority and city-wide government, and the city is, as virtually every Member has pointed out, multi-racial.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of normal thresholds. Our proposals are ones that the people of London have agreed should be put in place. We are ensuring that the rest of the Bill goes through here. The Government's proposals have been overwhelmingly voted for in the two days of debate. But it is undoubtedly the case that, in certain constituencies, and in certain circumstances with many parties and, in some instances, individual candidates,


those systems might result in a highly proportional result. Someone could be elected on less than 3 per cent., rather than what I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has been said to be the normal threshold of 3.85 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) made a particularly passionate yet reasoned speech, speaking, as he does, for a multi-cultural constituency. He said, and I agree, that there should be no place in the House for those who represent racism, fascism or extremist views of any kind. There is, should, and must continue to be a clear message from the House that we would fight those who would use such arguments to return themselves to this place, and in particular, to what we are proposing as a city-wide government for London.
This House is a torch for democracy, and has been for all its history, but there have been too many examples in the quite recent past of an unwillingness to counter immediately the forces of extremism, and we have seen them take over.

Mr. Wilkinson: I in no sense belittle the ethical impetus which drives the Minister's arguments. But, quite candidly, we should fight evil forces of every kind in politics on the hustings and in every way possible in all our activities. But if a representative of the Marxist-Leninist fringe faction, or some racist party, secures the requisite number of votes by any natural system, be it d'Hondt or any other, we should respect the view of the electorate and try to counter the arguments of that person once duly elected.

Ms Jackson: I respect the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but I cannot in all honesty accept his argument. I have touched on the point that he has made with regard to normal thresholds and how they, in the unique system that we are putting in place for the first time in Britain to produce a unique form of city government, could, as I have had occasion to say, enable extremist parties to be elected with less than 3 per cent. of the vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town highlighted the kind of increase that there was in extremist parties in Millwall, even under the first-past-the-post system when parties were united in contesting those candidates. I repeat that the Government are proposing a unique form of city-wide government, but one which affords the opportunity for a genuinely representative, multi-racial, gender-balanced assembly, where small parties can be returned. Because of the dangers that we have experienced in the past and the potential for such dangers in the future, the Secretary of State should have the power to set a threshold.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), in his opening contribution, referred to what he regards as the iniquities of any form of electoral system other than first past the post. He described the detrimental impact of such a system in Israel. He failed to touch on the fact that Germany has had a form of proportional representation. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, the threshold there was imposed by the allies after the second world war, precisely to ensure that there would not be a rise of fascist and extremist parties.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also referred to parties such as the Greens, and the fact that, in some instances, a normal threshold would


impact against their being returned. No one is arguing that the Green party is extremist. I well remember the European elections when the Greens polled more than 4 million votes but, under that system, could return no Member to the European Parliament. That is slightly outside tonight's debate, because our electoral system for this unique form of city-wide government has been agreed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I simply wish to clarify one point, because I may have misheard the Minister or she may have said something that she did not intend to say. She said that the Government want to prevent people from being elected if they represent extremist views and are below the natural threshold. My understanding is that the real debate, if we take percentages, is whether we accept the natural threshold which, given the Government's proposition, is 3.8 per cent., or whether we put up a higher threshold between that and 5 per cent. If a party received less than 3.8 per cent., it could not be elected in the next election for the London assembly because that would not be sufficient.

Ms Jackson: No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the argument. I was responding to a point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood based on the definition of a normal threshold which, in this instance, as we have heard, could be argued to be 3.85 per cent. But, as I pointed out, it would be entirely possible, given our system, for someone to be elected at a threshold much lower than 3.85 per cent. The issue here is not that we are looking to create an artificial threshold on party political grounds. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he had no doubt that the present Secretary of State would not consider that for one moment, and I understand what his concerns may be in the future.
We wish to have an inclusive assembly, which allows a range of interests and views to be represented. But we are creating a unique form of city-wide government for a unique city. Given the system that we will introduce to elect the assembly and the dangers inherent in it, we believe that it would be right for the Secretary of State to have the power to set a threshold. We are proposing that that should be a threshold of not more than 5 per cent. of the vote.
Because this is an issue of such importance, and because the matters raised tonight are so sensitive, but are of major importance in a democratic society such as ours, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw the amendment in the clear knowledge that the Government would not institute anything without the most—as I had occasion to say earlier—real debate on the issue.

Mr. Hughes: I seek to intervene one last time before the Minister sits down, as I anticipate she is about to do. This is a question to which I do not know the answer. Does the hon. Lady happen to know whether, within the EU, city or city-wide elections, such as those for the Paris or Barcelona councils, particularly in countries such as France or Germany where this is a real live issue—

Mr. Wilkinson: Why just in the EU?

Mr. Hughes: It could apply elsewhere, but I am concentrating on our neighbours. Do such countries have thresholds? Is there a precedent of city-wide, European, urban, multi-cultural, multi-race elections?

Ms Jackson: I do not have that information at hand, but I shall be happy to obtain it and write to the hon. Gentleman. I stress again that this is a decision for the House inasmuch as the system that we are introducing is unique. As I have said, it is a new form of government. What we are considering would be the first example of a threshold being set in such circumstances. Every aspect of the systems that we are proposing must ensure public confidence. We do not want the proposal to be nodded—or even voted—through without the most comprehensive debate. In the clear knowledge that we want to return to the issue, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Ottaway: I appreciate the Minister's measured response to the debate. She is right to point out that this is a sensitive subject.
I was not clear from her concluding remarks whether she was giving an undertaking to have another look at the issue. Perhaps she might like to clarify that.

Ms Jackson: I should be delighted to. I repeat yet again that the Government want the most detailed and searching debate on the issue. We are prepared to examine it again, but we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to set a threshold. We have argued for 5 per cent., but we want opinions outside the House to be discussed and examined. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, we shall be happy to discuss the issue in detail.

Mr. Ottaway: This is the moment to discuss it in detail. What is the Minister proposing? Is she saying that if we withdraw the amendment she may make a concession on Report? It is important for that to be clear to help the Opposition make up their mind on their stance.

Ms Jackson: Because of the sensitivity of the issues and the unique nature of what we are proposing, we should be able to listen to the arguments now that the debate has been entered into. They have mainly been in favour of what we are proposing, but there will be arguments against. I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that we are grateful for the opportunity to return to the issue on Report.

Mr. Ottaway: rose—

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Minister's extraordinary quasi assurance the same as mine? Does he feel that the hon. Lady is refusing to relinquish the power of the Secretary of State to decide the threshold, which will not necessarily be the natural threshold under the d'Hondt formula? Does he also agree that it shows the fatuity of the proportional d'Hondt system that it leaves us scratching around to decide whether to exclude particular candidates with derisory numbers of votes that would never secure election under a proper first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I hope that he will not be offended if I stick to the

point that I am trying to make with the Minister: whether she is making a concession to look at the issue again and return to it on Report. If so, we may well listen favourably to her proposal that we withdraw the amendment, but otherwise we consider the matter rather important. Perhaps she would like to clarify that.

Ms Jackson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has reduced the tenor of his contributions by implying that the Government do not regard what we have been debating as particularly important. I should like to make it abundantly clear that the Government will not re-examine the principle of a threshold, but we are prepared to examine the level at which it would be set. It is necessary for the whole House to be able to consider that. If he will withdraw the amendment, we shall have an opportunity for greater debate on Report.

Mr. Ottaway: I interpret that as an undertaking from the Minister to review the level at which the threshold is set and to revisit the matter on Report.
We have a problem. I share the concern of other hon. Members about extremism. I respect those from inner-city seats who have to fight it. The Conservative party backs them in their fight. However, there is a problem. London has a huge ethical minority. I believe that it is 25 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ethical?"] I am sorry; a huge ethnic minority. If we add the further 5 per cent. from eastern Europe, the figure is 30 per cent. A respectable candidate who based his candidature on ethnic origins would be precluded by the Bill.
That is where the conflict comes. We have a desire to be democratic, but we also want to combat racism. The problem is inherent if proportional representation is introduced to a city such as London. The Government cannot have it both ways. They can have an electoral system that does not take a chance. If they introduce a different system, those risks are inevitable. The Government did not feel it necessary to introduce the mechanism in Wales or Scotland. This is not an easy decision to come to, but the Conservatives have come down in favour of the democratic argument and we believe in the natural threshold.
However, in the light of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. We do not propose to divide the Committee. To help those who may have arrived expecting a Committee vote, let me say that my judgment is that there will not be one. If they want to stay, they are welcome, but, if they do not, they can go somewhere else.
The previous debate, quite properly, became something of an exploratory discussion between the Minister for Transport in London and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I want to say only that the Liberal Democrats will happily enter unconditionally into discussions with the Government. I hope that the correct interpretation of the Minister's response to the previous debate is that, outside the Committee, some discussions can take place between the parties whose members represent London in the House of Commons.
We retain our preference for the position that I expressed in the previous debate: it would be better if that power did not reside with the Secretary of State, and if the recommendation came from a body that was not party political but independent, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested. I hope that the Government can be persuaded on that point—I do not suggest that they are not open to persuasion. I understand that the Minister for Transport in London has a preferred position, but it would be helpful if, in responding to this short stand part debate, the Minister for London and Construction said, as he always does on sensitive issues, that, outside the Committee, we can pursue ways of reaching an agreement.
If we do that, and if, in next year's elections, people stand on racist or extremist platforms, we can—as we eventually did during the second Millwall by-election—express a common view. On that occasion, the Conservative party and the Labour party, to their credit, and the Liberal Democrats were clear about how we should counter those who had entered the democratic process properly, but had done so to undermine the rights of everyone to participate equally in it.

Mr. Raynsford: This short stand part debate brings us to the end of the Committee's deliberations on the first four clauses and two schedules of the Bill. We have had an interesting series of debates on an innovative constitutional arrangement that will give London a new type of leadership and create new electoral arrangements. Inevitably, in that process, difficult issues have arisen, one of which is the scope for unrepresentative and vicious parties, peddling racial hatred, to try to secure legitimacy through election. All of us who are familiar with the problems that occurred in Millwall in the early 1990s know how dangerous that threat is to good race relations in London, which is why the issue must be taken seriously.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London made clear, the Government believe that it is right for there to be a threshold to provide a safeguard against such an eventuality. No measure can provide a guarantee, but it can help to provide a safeguard. We recognise that different views have been expressed about how that threshold should be determined, at what level it should be set and how it should be expressed. Some might argue that it should appear in the Bill, rather than be determined by the Secretary of State. For that reason, my hon. Friend was happy to give the undertaking that the Government would reflect on that issue and return to it on Report.
That is illustrative of the approach to the legislation that we have taken and will continue to take. Wherever possible, we shall try to secure agreement on issues of general concern to London.

Mr. Hughes: The Committee has rightly emphasised the importance of the issue. It would be helpful if the Minister could make one more offer: to do as he has done in respect of other matters and, not only promise further Government reflection, but convene outside the Committee a forum in which we can try to reach agreement between the three parties whose members currently represent London in the House of Commons. Ideally, we will have reached a common view on the issue by the time we go into the elections for the Greater London assembly.

Mr. Raynsford: I fear the hon. Gentleman will have difficulty in securing the degree of consensus he hopes for, given the fundamentally different positions adopted by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on most issues. However, I have given an undertaking that the Government will reflect further and I am happy to meet representatives of the Liberal Democrats and of other parties who wish to come to see me in the period between now and Report stage. With that, I urge the Committee to agree to the schedule.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill (Clauses 1 to 4 and Schedules 1 and 2) reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

Education Funding(South Gloucestershire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Mr. Steve Webb: It will come as no great surprise to hon. Members to learn that the subject of my Adjournment debate has not been the sole topic of conversation this afternoon among my fellow Liberal Democrats. Having said that, it is an issue of substantial importance to thousands of children in South Gloucestershire, who are represented by me and by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), whose constituency includes a substantial part of South Gloucestershire, and who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The allocation of money between local authorities, especially for education, is a highly political issue because it relates to values. However, it is also a highly technical issue. I shall refer principally to those technical issues tonight, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
I hope not to approach the issue on a party political basis. As I have said, my arguments are principally technical and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent South Gloucestershire constituencies—I welcome also the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) who represents part of the authority area—share some of my concerns and may give voice to them during the debate.
By way of background, I should explain that South Gloucestershire is an area with a rapidly growing population—in fact, it has one of the fastest growing populations in the country. Many new employers have located to the area—including the Ministry of Defence at Abbey Wood, the aerospace industry and Hewlett Packard—and large numbers of people have moved there also. That is not a one-off phenomenon as population projections suggest that South Gloucestershire's population will also grow rapidly over the next decade or two. That presents some particular problems to which I shall refer this evening.
The Minister will be aware that I have tabled questions designed to assess the amount of money per primary pupil that authorities throughout the country receive under the standard spending assessment. The Minister will also be aware that South Gloucestershire usually finishes at the bottom of that league table. According to the written answer that I received, primary school pupils in South Gloucestershire receive an SSA of £2,215 each compared with the national average of £2,372.
I am the first to accept that any league table must have a top and a bottom—although I do not welcome the fact that South Gloucestershire has been persistently at the bottom of it. I recognise that other authorities with greater deprivation and greater needs deserve more funding. That is not my problem tonight. However, I believe that the formula must achieve its desired objective: if it is trying to capture deprivation or need, it must do so in the right way. I argue not that South Gloucestershire should be at the top or the middle of the league table, but that the formula should achieve what it is designed to achieve. South Gloucestershire has remained at the bottom of the

table following the announcement of this year's settlement—we could debate the generosity or otherwise of that settlement—partly because of reasons that are technical and difficult to explain on the basis of justice.
I shall raise three principal issues, to which I hope that the Minister will respond positively. The Government allocate a certain amount of money per pupil and then multiply that sum by the number of pupils in the authority. The fundamental question is: which pupils and when? As I understand the system—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong as I do not claim to be an authority on local authority finances—the number of secondary school pupils is counted in September at the start of the academic year. That information feeds into the local government calculations in the autumn, and the money starts to filter through the following April. The process is completed within one financial year, which seems perfectly reasonable.
The system is different for primary pupils and the count is taken not in September but in the preceding January. That will not make much difference to many authorities with static populations, but it makes an enormous difference in South Gloucestershire. I asked my local council—which has kindly provided all South Gloucestershire Members with a briefing for tonight's debate—how many primary pupils were added to the count between January and September. The answer is 267—more than 1 per cent. That is the equivalent of an extra primary school in our area—and that is an extra school this year, next year and the year after because it happens every year. It is not a one-off phenomenon.
The council reckons that the figure is out of date and that, if the figure for September rather than the preceding January were used, it would receive an extra £750,000. That is serious money for South Gloucestershire. If the formula were based on up-to-date rather than out-of-date statistics, the loss to certain other authorities—assuming that the total pot remained unchanged—would be quite marginal. I do not argue that all London authorities should lose and only South Gloucestershire should gain. However, that discrepancy in the formula acutely affects my local authority and a small number of others with rapidly growing populations. If it were taken into account, it would result not in huge, sweeping losses but in only fairly modest losses elsewhere.
The council has further calculated that, over the course of a year, it spends £1.5 million educating children whom it has not counted yet and for whom it has not received any money. There cannot be any rationale or justification for such a system. I shall illustrate the most extreme case. If a family moved in February 1998 to South Gloucestershire, perhaps because of a job at the Ministry of Defence at Abbey Wood, their children would not appear in the count of pupils at primary school until January 1999. They would not, therefore, become part of the local government calculations until autumn 1999 and the money to pay for their education would not emerge until April 2000. That means that the council would face more than two years of paying for books, equipment and other costs before it received a penny.
I hope that there is a more rational system that we could use. In the age of the internet, it seems incredible that we have such out-of-date figures on the numbers of children in our primary schools. They are not difficult to count. My pre-primary school-age children move around rather a lot but even they are not too difficult to count.
It has been suggested to me that, in the autumn, the Department's civil servants are under considerable pressure gathering material and information to work out all the figures. I accept that their work has a seasonal nature and that counting the children in September would place a greater burden on the Department than counting them in the previous January. With tongue only slightly in cheek, however, I shall make the Minister an offer. I understand that there are about 18,000 primary schools in England. I will personally type in the numbers of pupils in those schools if that will make the difference. If the only obstacle to counting the children currently in school rather than those who were in school nine months ago is the civil servants' lack of time, there are ways round that. I hope that the Minister will reassure me on that point. My researcher looked very nervous when she read that part of my speech.
My second point is particular to South Gloucestershire but less so than my previous point. It relates to the education of children from beyond the local authority boundary. South Gloucestershire was recently reorganised and used to be part of the former Avon authority. Children go to and fro and now cross boundaries that did not previously exist. Therefore, partly for historical reasons, South Gloucestershire educates a particularly large number of pupils—about 3,000—from outside the authority. That number may be diminishing, but it is still substantial.
If a primary school child is to be educated in a neighbouring authority, such as Bristol—which is the most obvious authority to export pupils to South Gloucestershire—the authority will be allocated £2,338. If the same child goes half a mile up the A38, to be educated in a South Gloucestershire school, we have to educate him or her for £2,215—£123 less. The authority is already under a great deal of stress.
I am not trying to set up South Gloucestershire against Bristol, but many people move into the area and want their children educated in local schools, which are full. Those parents must understand not only that the schools are educating pupils from other authorities but that South Gloucestershire receives what it considers to be an inadequate amount of money for doing so—something that parents find particularly hard to accept.
The bizarre result of the system is that, if a child from Bristol goes to school in South Gloucestershire, central Government save money because the child is being educated in an authority with a lower SSA. It is hard to believe that the cost of educating that child is really £123 less half a mile up the A38 because the books cost the same and the teachers are on the same pay scales. If, at the very least, the money followed the child, and central Government did not profit from the arbitrary fact that the child was going over a line on a map to be educated, that would substantially help the authority.
My final point relates to the thrilling subject of the standard spending assessment formula. I suspect that the Minister and her colleagues have been bored to death by almost everyone in the country on that topic, so I shall follow suit. I am sure that she has heard many cases of special pleading as to why every authority wants more money.

Mr. Bob Russell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Webb: Even Colchester. We need a system that is just and achieves its aims. I shall not dwell on the area

cost adjustment, which is popular in the west country. I shall concentrate on the additional needs allowance aspect of the calculation.
I understand that the principal variables used to try to identify additional education needs are ethnicity and lone parenthood. It is implausible that the proportion of children from ethnic minority backgrounds is a good proxy for additional educational needs when certain ethnic minority backgrounds tend to produce children with above average educational attainment. It is a crude indicator.
South Gloucestershire is in many respects a relatively prosperous area, although with significant pockets of deprivation, but it has significant numbers of children with additional educational needs. I today asked the Library to give me another blessed league table showing the proportion of statemented children. It shows that South Gloucestershire has an above average proportion of such children. I can think of 100 reasons why such league tables might be dubious—policies vary and so on—but that example shows that, just because an area seems relatively prosperous on the face of it, it does necessarily lack children with additional educational needs. The present indicators are not picking that up.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while the increase of some 6.9 per cent. in the education SSA for the coming year for South Gloucestershire may indeed be partly explained by growth in the area and by data changes, it is nevertheless greater than it has been in recent years? If, as he has expounded so eloquently, we can improve the way in which primary school head counts are translated into SSA figures, very significant progress will have been made.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this very technical but basically simple issue of primary school head counts. I do not want to get into a pointless debate about whether this year's settlement is a lot or a little. My understanding from the authority is that 6.8 or 6.9 per cent., adjusted for the number of extra pupils—a number that is out of date anyway—means that we are getting the national average, but we are still around the bottom of the table. It does nothing about the technical problems, so I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
The fundamental technical point is that the balance between the essential—I was going to say "bog standard", but I am not sure whether that is parliamentary language—figure for "ordinary" children and the tweaks for area costs and additional needs seems to be wrong. The variations across the country in the cost of educating one child seem to me to be too great to relate to the variation in true costs. As far as I can see, that is because the core figure for "ordinary" children seems to have too little weight and the variable factors seem to have too much.
One might ask how South Gloucestershire has managed so far. It has done so in two ways. The first is by spending several million pounds in excess of its SSA.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I should like to reinforce the point about the head count, which would be of great benefit to my constituency. When a local authority area is given an SSA, it does not necessarily mean that the money is provided to meet it. In order for


some local authorities to spend up to their education SSA level, they have to make cuts in other services. It seems as though central Government are abdicating their responsibility and passing it to local councils which are then blamed for the cuts, when in fact it is the inadequacies of central Government funding that are to blame. This is not a party political point—that policy was pursued rigorously by the previous Government and, unfortunately, the same ideas seem to be creeping into this Government's policies.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. With his background in local government, he understands far better than I do the arcane niceties of local authority funding. I hope that the Minister responds to that point when she sums up.
I was setting out how South Gloucestershire has coped. It has coped by spending £7 million above its education SSA this year. With capping in place—various versions of it, at least—that means cutting other services. That in turn means that I get letters from pensioners asking why they are paying for social services when they used not to, and it means raiding the reserves, but I regret to say that the reserves are pretty nearly empty.
The other services are in many respects underfunded rather than overfunded, and the only conclusion is that things cannot continue as they are. South Gloucestershire cannot go on raiding its reserves and cutting other services. Any allowances that the Minister can make tonight to deal with some of the injustices in the formula will be gratefully received.
I am not asking that South Gloucestershire be moved to the top of the table, or even the middle. I am simply asking that some manifest injustices, especially the use of out-of-date figures on primary school pupils, be corrected. I hope that the Minister will send us home tonight with a message for the children of South Gloucestershire that, at long last, under this Government the funding for their education will soon be put on a proper footing.

9 pm

Mr. Roger Berry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate and on an excellent speech. I agree, I think, with everything that he said. The issue is extremely important to his constituents, my constituents—three-quarters of whom reside in South Gloucestershire—and the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). We have all made representations to Ministers on this and related issues. Indeed, on one occasion we managed to write a joint letter—all in the tradition of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament agreeing to get rid of tribalism and to co-operate with and listen to each other.
I notice the absence of interest of a single Conservative Member in a debate on educational funding in South Gloucestershire. I have been wondering why so many Liberal Democrats are present. I am sure that it is because they anticipated a quality speech from the hon. Member for Northavon, and that it had nothing to do with whether he would announce his candidature for his party's leadership.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we should remind ourselves that this is a debate and not a rally.

Mr. Berry: I am not the campaign manager of the hon. Member for Northavon, and I of course accept that rebuke. I merely emphasise that the four hon. Members—including myself—to whom I have referred, have very seriously supported the arguments of South Gloucestershire council on this issue.
I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the increase in South Gloucestershire's education standard spending assessment is significantly greater than in previous years. Some schools in my constituency are already benefiting from the new deal. There are new classrooms, and class sizes are coming down as a result of the Government's initiatives. I warmly welcome the substantial additional funding for education overall.
Like the hon. Member for Northavon, I feel strongly that South Gloucestershire council is being treated unfairly, but I do not do so simply because of a place in a league table. League tables are quite useful, but given that some local authorities must be at the top, some in the middle and some at the bottom, it is sensible to ask why they are in such places and whether there is any case for doing something about it. League tables are a guide to asking sensible questions. When I do so about South Gloucestershire council's ranking for education SSAs, I must confess that I reach very similar conclusions to the hon. Gentleman.
Why is South Gloucestershire council's education SSA so low? First, it is due to the allowance for area cost adjustment. I say no more about that except that at least four hon. Members present, who have served on either the former Avon authority or district councils in that area, have made this argument to successive Governments year after year. We all believe that, for our part of the country, the way in which the area cost adjustment is dealt with is inequitable.
Secondly, there is the issue of additional educational needs, about which, as the hon. Member for Northavon has said, concern has been recognised. The Government have recognised that that, too, is flawed. Unfortunately, however, we do not yet have a more satisfactory solution.
Thirdly, the education SSA in South Gloucestershire is too low because of the date on which children in school are counted to calculate it, as has been mentioned. The primary SSA for the next financial year, 1999–2000, is based on the number of pupils in school in January 1998—the beginning of last year. Obviously, pupils who started primary school in September 1998 will not be funded by the SSA until April 2000, which is a delay of 18 months.
I am aware of the justification for using the January figures for primary school children and the September figures for secondary school children. The unfortunate thing about children is that they do not all become five at the beginning of the school year.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): indicated assent.

Mr. Berry: The Minister is right. It is profoundly awkward and it is a serious reason why dealing with the count for the primary SSA is more complex and difficult


than dealing with that for children starting secondary education. One can see the argument that, if it has to be September, January or April, why not take January, and I dare say that that could be the justification for doing so. Unfortunately, schools cannot staff classrooms on that basis. They have to plan to have teachers there throughout the year.
Therefore, a general problem is confronted when the count is based on youngsters in primary school in January, but South Gloucestershire has the particular problem that, because of rapid growth, the relevant pupil numbers are much more out of date than for the majority of other local education authorities. I am sure that it will be said that, this time round, the increase in the education SSA for South Gloucestershire is significantly better than in previous years, as I said, and I welcome that. It might even be said that the increase is one of the largest in the country, and that would be true. The precise reason why it is one of the largest is rapid population growth, because pupil numbers are rising by about 2 per cent. each year. South Gloucestershire is being unfairly treated as regards the primary SSA precisely because primary school numbers are rising by that much. That rapid growth in population—at Emersons Green in particular, but also elsewhere—means that the figures are seriously disadvantaging the council.
The director of financial resources—it used to be treasurer, which was easier to remember—information technology and so forth for South Gloucestershire council, Richard Szadziewski, who is the officer responsible, estimates that the council will have to spend £1.6 million to fund children who are in school, but who do not exist as far as the SSA calculation is concerned.
The SSA for primary education should be calculated on the basis of the number of children of primary age who were in school in the previous September, as the hon. Member for Northavon said. I urge the Minister seriously to consider that suggestion. If that change cannot be introduced for 1999–2000, I seriously urge her and her colleagues to consider introducing it in the following year.
The present system is manifestly unjust to a local education authority that is experiencing a rapid increase in pupil numbers. We are not talking about changing the formula. Nor are we talking about a difficult negotiation, in which there will be winners and losers so that it will be a problem. In this case, we are talking about simply changing the data to which the formula is applied. That would make a profound difference to South Gloucestershire and, perhaps, one or two other local authorities, but it would have virtually no impact anywhere else.
In conclusion, and I apologise if I have spoken too long, I not only acknowledge but warmly welcome the fact that South Gloucestershire council has received a significant increase in its education SSA. It is the best SSA for years but—this must be said—a significant reason for that is the increase in pupil numbers. The increase in the education SSA does not diminish the strength of the council's argument that education funding at present is unfair. I urge the Minister and her ministerial colleagues to consider these issues further.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): First, I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on raising the topic

that is before us, which is clearly one that will concern his constituents and all those who live in the council area. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) in saying that I think the hon. Gentleman delivered the message in a sensitive and sensible way, which enables us to have a decent conversation about an important issue. I acknowledge the interest that my hon. Friend and other colleagues who represent seats in the area have shown in this issue.
Before I come to answer the questions that have been raised—I shall discuss the fundamental issues in some detail—I want as a Minister with responsibility for education to acknowledge the achievements of schools within Gloucestershire. Whatever their input in terms of finance, their output is very good. The key stage 2 results for the key subjects of both English and maths are above the national average. That comment is not intended to score a cheap point—"If you can do that with a small amount of money, I might take some more off you next year." I will take any opportunity to praise good quality teaching and effective learning wherever that may be.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, the debate takes place in an atmosphere and against a background of an increasing amount of money going into schools. I understand that this is an argument about the share of the pot, but I know that I would not have been expected to reply to the debate without making it clear that the pot is larger this year than last year, and that it will be larger still over the next three years.
The fact that there will be a £19 billion increase over the settlement period of the comprehensive spending review enables us, perhaps, to address some of the issues that will arise. It is far more difficult to do that at a time of falling budgets than when they are increasing. I accept, of course, that if there is more money available, there is an argument for wanting a fair share of the cake if the cake is about to grow. I am happy that the point has been made that the money that is being made available is increasing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood is right to say that education SSAs will rise by 5.7 per cent. this year. South Gloucestershire's provisional education SSA will rise by 7.2 per cent. I do not know where that puts it on the league table, but I know that measured against the comparable figure last year, it is an increase that is above the national average. My hon. Friend was right to say that that is because of increased pupil numbers. In some ways, because the pot is larger and because most of it is delivered on pupil-led funding, that has been reflected in an increase in the SSA. That is the position whatever count is taken. The debate comes down to the SSA formula because that is the criterion that decides how much money will go to each local authority and then to schools.
An important point is when we do the count. I shall not argue that it would not be better to have more recent figures of pupil numbers for deciding the count. That makes sense and there is neither an educational argument nor an economic one for using any figures but the most recent that it is possible to obtain—and it is essential to validate them and to ensure that they are robust.
It should not always be assumed that greater numbers will mean more money. The crucial factor is rate of growth compared with rates of growth within other local authorities. There could be a gain by not having an


accurate reflection because of the comparable rates of growth within other local authorities. An individual rate of growth might be large and it might be thought large compared with other local authorities, and that would be the key point. There may be more children in schools, but how is that reflected when compared with pupil growth across the nation? The fact that pupil numbers have grown nationally means that the national pot from which resources are distributed has been larger this time round.
It would be a good idea if the September count used for secondary schools could also be used for primary schools. I was grateful for the offer made by the hon. Member for Northavon, although I suspect that he may not be the only Liberal Democrat Member who is filling in job application forms this evening. With respect, if the solution was as simple as typing numbers into a computer, I would instruct our officials to do so. I would make sure that the allocation of civil servants at that key point was sufficient to allow us to do that.
The critical date is not when the money starts being spent in schools, but when the local authority settlement is announced. There is a relatively short time between September and the date when the Government must make decisions about that. One of the things that I have learnt since becoming a Minister is that the figures are checked, rechecked, and double and triple checked, because as the hon. Gentleman said, key decisions depend on those figures.
I am told by civil servants that although they find it possible to carry out such checks in that time for the 6,000 secondary schools, they do not believe that at present they could do the same for the 20,000 primary schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood remarked, at the start of the school year, there is some fluctuation before the numbers settle down, especially as primary schools may have a common enrolment date, but do not have a common starting date.
Nevertheless, we would be happy to reduce the time between allocation and count. If technology makes that possible in the medium term, there is nothing to prevent us from doing so. That is our wish. We have no ulterior motives, provided that I could promise hon. Members that the numbers would be as accurate as they are now.
The best that I can offer now is to say that I hear what all hon. Members have said. The issue affects other local authorities as well. The fact that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter tonight will serve as a reminder to me and help me to keep it in mind. When we can change the counting date, I have no objection to doing so, and nor do the Government.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. LEAs have a rough idea in September how many primary pupils they have to educate, as they have to pay the teachers' salaries, arrange for the contracts to be drawn up, buy the books and so on. Would it not be possible to get a provisional figure from all LEAs, with some penalty mechanism for LEAs that give an inflated figure? Is it not better to have the right sort of figures—I dread the phrase "the right ball-park"—rather than to use a figure from eight months before that turns out to be

completely wrong? We could at least now set the date as April. I do not believe that it takes from January to November to get the numbers right.

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman paused after he said "the right", and went on to say, "sort of figures". He was correct the first time. It is better to allocate money on the basis of actual pupils, rather than on estimated pupil numbers. We have considered the use of estimates as an option, but that would create new bureaucracy to pay money back, claw it back and argue with local authorities about the accuracy of figures.
That was one of the issues discussed in "Fair Funding". On the whole, schools are not keen on using projected numbers. They would prefer their money to be allocated on actual numbers. The hon. Gentleman's argument has some validity, but there are strong arguments against it. It would affect our ability to move quickly if we paid out money to some local authorities and later had to claw it back.
The hon. Member for Northavon perceived correctly that I was about to move on to the other tricky point—what constitutes the standard spending assessment formula. I shall happily keep his point in mind. I shall also happily reflect and take advice on whether it is ever worth moving the timetable by only a few months. Making such a change is very much not a political decision, but a matter of the political machinery practising the art of the possible. No political impediment stops our receiving more accurate and more recent figures; no one has any such political agenda. As I now realise that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the matter, I shall keep him informed of developments.
SSAs are a terribly complex matter. I realise that hon. Members know that SSAs are not—and should not be—determined to provide the same spending level for each pupil, but should ensure that the same education standard is available across the country, acknowledging the fact that the cost of providing education varies from one local education authority to another.
Additional education needs, providing free school meals, meeting small schools' transport costs in rural areas and labour costs in the south-east and in London are all factors that have to be considered. The hon. Member for Northavon cited two factors—ethnicity and single-parent families—as major elements in determining SSAs. The fact is that there are so many elements in determining SSAs that the process is an absolute minefield. Moreover, the debate on the relationships between those elements, too, is a minefield.
The hon. Member for Northavon said, for example, that ethnicity surely is not the key factor in determining whether extra resources are needed in a classroom. Interestingly, although ethnicity is a factor at some key stages, poverty becomes a greater factor by key stage 4. Moreover, the situation changes at each key stage and across the education system. Therefore—although it would not reflect real life—it would be good, and easier administratively, if everyone could agree on some factors in determining SSAs.

Mr. David Drew: As a kindred spirit—now that South Gloucestershire is back in the historic county of Gloucestershire—I can have some say in this debate, even if we are in a different education authority. My hon.


Friend the Minister has been making a valuable point. I appreciate why the educational needs dilemma has not yet been resolved, as doing so might have made the poorest children in London worse off. However, surely there will be a need for a mechanism in the next three years to consider how we can manage change, given that additional educational needs seem to be one of the many ingredients for disparities and unfairness in the formula.

Ms Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and shall try to deal with them—particularly and pointedly—in a moment.
It is amazing that not one hon. Member or council leader queued up to tell me that his or her local authority's SSA was too generous. I smiled when the hon. Member for Northavon started his speech by saying that he would not be making a party political argument. I can tell the House exactly how the battle-lines were drawn in the discussions on SSAs: they were drawn parochially, according to a local authority's boundaries.
Even if we could have changed SSAs and offered funding protection this year, at a time of increased spending, some local authority leaders and local authority associations would still have been split on the matter, as they wanted also to increase their share of a larger cake.
As the hon. Member for Northavon will know, in the past few months the Government have been consistent in dealing with the matter. The bottom line is that, had there been general agreement on the matter among local authorities and local authority associations, we might have been able this year to make some progress in adopting an SSA that was accepted as being fair. However, there was no such agreement.
I feel strongly that we cannot fundamentally change SSAs every year—or even every three, five or 10 years—but that we have to get SSAs right. This year, despite all the effort that has been put into the matter and all the contributions that have been made, we did not feel that there was unanimity or that we could have made more progress. However, that is not the end of the debate.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that more work needs to be done on that issue, and the Government hope to return to it over the lifetime of this Parliament. We have asked local authority associations to continue with their work, and we will continue to do so.
I represent a constituency in Birmingham, in the midlands, not a southern seat. I am not saying that the SSA is fair and equitable and can be defended on either pure educational grounds or even on the ground of giving opportunity to all children. We are all at one about that. I hope that, in this time of an increasing budget, we can seize the opportunity to achieve something that, although it is not perfect, we can all live with and that does a reasonably balanced job of treating our children fairly.
As a Minister, I have to live with that SSA formula, both this year and next year, but I want to do something about what I believe to be inequality of resource allocation. I must use the mechanisms that are to hand and, because of that, we have looked carefully at the money that does not come through SSAs, but through the standards fund and other pots of money over which the Government have more control.
I remind hon. Members who represent the South Gloucestershire area that, as well as the 7.2 per cent. increase in SSA funding, we are making £3.3 million available through the standards fund. That is 10 per cent. more than we made available for the local authority last year and it includes £500,000 specifically to reduce class sizes. Capital funding this year for South Gloucestershire is £900,000.
When the hon. Member for Northavon and I met, I thought that we would discuss performance tables in respect of allocation of resources because he was bound to say that South Gloucestershire is at the bottom of those tables. I do not deny that; it is clear that pupils in his area receive less funding on a straight SSA basis than any others.
Where we have flexibility, however, we are trying to put resources into certain areas. The argument is not about this year's underfunding; underfunding is historic, because the argument has never been tackled and these difficult issues have never been grasped. It is interesting to compare funding in respect of the standards fund. South Gloucestershire has received more standards fund allocation per pupil than more than 115 authorities, and more capital funding than more than 135 authorities. South Gloucestershire would appear in the top part of such a league table.
South Gloucestershire received 20 per cent. more money per pupil through the standards fund than the national average, and 75 per cent. more money per pupil than the national average through our support for capital funding. I know that that is a smaller stream of revenue and capital, but that was where we had flexibility this year and where we could begin to try to rectify some of the faults, which I agree exist, within the SSA formula.
Authorities that do badly under the SSA formula are stuck with that for the next two or three years, but it may be possible to find other ways of getting money into those local authorities. That may offer some reassurance—although big bucks, to use a crude term, are not involved—about the plight of local authorities that get a rough deal in SSAs, through no fault of their own and because of what happened in their area years ago.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister therefore confirm that the impact of what she has told the House is that, when using the flexibility that she claims the Department has to choose which of the 16,000 LEA bids made since the Government took office will be successful, the Department is using as one of the criteria for selection the position on the SSA per pupil league table? Is the implication of that that LEAs that are high on that league table are wasting their time putting in a bid?

Ms Morris: No. The criterion must always be the quality of the bid. The hon. Gentleman knows that when decisions are made, we always look at the overall picture. What will never be tolerated, however, is a bad bid—someone going through the standards fund to a local authority just to get the money. The key issue is that the Government's national agenda must be met. I am delighted if we can ensure that local authorities' needs are met through sources of Government funding, of which there are many.

Mr. Webb: Some of my constituents in Gloucestershire will say that we receive more capital funding because our schools are falling down. One school in my constituency has nets to catch the roof tiles so that they do not hit the children on the head, and home economics and science classes are taught in corridors. Another school has had to approach the lord of the manor for more land because it is overcrowded. I suspect that the fact that we have received more money from that bit of the pot simply reflects the continuing unmet need. My real concern tonight is about current expenditure—bread and butter money for year-in, year-out needs.

Ms Morris: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He was perfectly right in the first half of his comments: it is wrong that a school in his authority should have to have a net to catch tiles falling off the roof. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that that is not important, so he should not say that he is not asking for increased capital spending. If I were him, I would gratefully receive


it and shout it from the rooftops with tiles on. Although the debate has been about revenue funding, we are discussing the whole picture.
This debate has been useful. It will continue because I sense great dissatisfaction among many hon. Members about how their local authority is dealt with in terms of SSA methodology. We do not want to change it to make it worse; we want to change it to reflect real needs, so that children throughout the country have a similar standard of education. Given that that is such a large task with huge implications, it is worth getting right. On that basis, I am entirely happy that we have not tackled it this year, but very much hope to return to it next year.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon for his comments. I shall reflect on them and keep him and other hon. Members informed if we are able to make further progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o'clock.